This thread is for all error reports and suggestions for the MUL online database, as found at:

http://www.masterunitlist.info/

Some notes - read before posting:

- How do I log in? You can't. The login is only for site administrators. - As this covers suggestions as well as errors, discussion is allowed in this thread. - This database does not include Dark Age availabilities for units published prior to TR 3085. - The entire Camospecs/Iron Wind Metals feature is still being worked on (as in: the entire way it works could change). We're not going to be dealing with individual issues on this for a while. - Corrections not touching on the above are welcome. However, please provide a page number and/or direct quote to support your case. "Faction X should have this because I said so" is less than helpful and will likely be ignored. - If you have corrections for a unit entry, include a direct MUL link to the unit in question in your report. - If it's a BV or Alpha Strike stat correction, please enclose or attach your entire calculation and how you made it (by hand, SSW, MML, Heavy Metal etc; include version number of any software used).

Please keep your posts concise and polite. Posts that do not follow these rules will be deleted. Thank you.

WHAT IS THE MUL?- The Master Unit List is a free product that contains the latest Battle Values, Alpha Strike stats, faction availabilities, and introduction dates for as many units in BattleTech as we can manage.

- The MUL is official and fully canonical. At the same time, it is a living document, continually being updated to best reflect all available sources.

- If a unit appears on the MUL, then enough validation was done to determine that "Yes, this unit existed and is not pure rumour." This does not mean that said unit will ever see its stats published: that is not the purpose of the MUL. The MUL's primary purpose is to provide an official list of all known units in the universe, and their faction availability.

- That something is not on the MUL does not mean it does not exist. The concept of "the needs of fiction" still apply to the BattleTech universe. Not every factory, vehicle and handgun in the universe has been documented, nor will they ever be. The MUL is what we know: what has been documented in canon.

- Unlike the MUL, Sarna.net is not a canon source. If Sarna lists a unit and the MUL doesn't, then the MUL is most likely correct (though we certainly do make mistakes, which this thread is here to collect and correct). The MUL has access to internal information that Sarna does not.

Project Updates:Homeworld Clan and Late Succession Wars data is now available.Star League and Early Succession Wars data is now available.

Thanks for these, Mordel. If you think you know where the error is, that would be helpful in our analysis. Often these turn out to be bugs in the code for MML or SSW.

Now that you say it, I only compared my calculations against MML. Checking SSW did help with a couple as they match what is in the MUL. They are as follows:

Grand Dragon DRG-9KCYou can ignore this one. I didn't notice the legs had different amounts of armor. When I change the right leg armor to 22 per the record sheet, my calculation is likewise 1,147. So the MUL is correct (sorry).

Hatamoto-Chi HTM-28T (Shin)SSW calculates the sword BV to be 15.53. My calculations and MML calculate it to be 31.05. I don't believe SSW accounts for the TSM, doubling the damage of the sword and thus doubling the BV.

Mauler MAL-2RUnfortunately, the BV for this between my calculations, SSW, and MML all match at 1,586. So perhaps what is in the MUL was just a typo?

The Banshee BNC-8S (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/250/banshee-bnc-8s) has its Battle Value listed as 2,369 (which matches SSW). According to my calculations (as well as those from MML), the BV for this unit should be 2,408. The calculations are as follows:

==============================================================================================BattleMech Battle Value---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defensive Battle Rating: 1,179.425 Offensive Battle Rating: (+) 1,228.205 = 2,407.630----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Final BattleMech Battle Value: 2,408The difference appears to be due to the fact that SSW calculates the hatchet at a BV of 28.50, whereas MML and myself have it calculated at a BV of 57.00. It appears SSW is not accounting for the increased damage due to TSM.

This is listed as the "Uni ATAE-70M MilitiaMech" in the RSVA IndustrialMechs and Exoskeletons pdf on page 95. On page 228 of TRVA Revised, its also called a "MilitiaMech" rather than a "CargoMech MOD"

changed.

Quote

On page 45 in Wolf and Blake (and on other pages, that's just the main), the character's name is "Achillius" His mech is named the same way. Change the name from "Achilleus" to "Achillius"

I left this one alone for now. The record sheet has it as Achilleus. I also found it in other places in the book as that. There is one more reference with it spelled as Achillius than Achilleus. There is no errata for it. I dropped a question for Ben in the ask the writers forum. Once we get confirmation either way, we can put it in the errata thread and, if needed, change the MUL.

OK, with Homeworld Clan data now available during the Civil War and Jihad eras I've taken a look at the availabilities for all ProtoMechs and compared them with notes of my own. I found a few discrepancies which might be worth looking into. Keep in mind that most of my "sources" were RATs, since ProtoMechs were never really fluffed out one way or another.

This is listed as "Introductory" but the Record Sheet on page 319 of the RS3050U-C has it armed with ER and Pulse lasers.

Fix is to make it atleast Standard. That's what the Record Sheet says (or atleast it doesn't say anything other than "Inner Sphere"). The problem is the RS doesn't say how to make the design exactly, and the Fuel is listed as "3 points" which is obviously wrong. If that 3 points means tons instead, then I THINK the design has to be made with a small aerospace cockpit, which would make the design Advanced until 3081.

"If rumors of a high-performance teleoperated version are to be believed, it is quite possible that the additional room normally taken by the cockpit could allow another laser system or even higher-grade weapons."

The Highlander HGN-694 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5493/highlander-hgn-694) has its Battle Value listed as 2,358 (which matches MML and SSW). According to my calculations, the BV for this unit should be 2,369. The calculations are as follows:

===========================================================================================================BattleMech Battle Value----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defensive Battle Rating: 1,074.900 Offensive Battle Rating: (+) 1,294.000 = 2,368.900-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Final BattleMech Battle Value: 2,369The difference is due to the fact that MML and SSW both calculate the explosive equipment penalty as -11 whereas I calculate it as -2. The reason for this is because only 2 critical slots of the HGR is located in the CT. The other 9 are located in the LT, which is protected by CASE. This situation is covered under the Critical Hits sub-section on page 136 of TW. Since the explosion happens in the side torso only (because of CASE), the damage would not transfer, and thus the 9 HGR slots in the side torso should not be considered for explosive equipment.

The Highlander HGN-694 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5493/highlander-hgn-694) has its Battle Value listed as 2,358 (which matches MML and SSW). According to my calculations, the BV for this unit should be 2,369. The calculations are as follows:

I'd like the Intro dates checked for the Rifleman RFL-3N and Rifleman II RFL-3N-2.

RFL-3N: 2770RFL-3N-2: 2720

It seems to me that the RFL-3N should be around LONG before a "II" version of it is invented. The gap between the -2N's intro date of 2556 and the -3N's of 2770 seems pretty profound. This should perhaps be changed to around the time the RFL-3N-2 was introduced, with proliferation to the Member States at the original date of 2770.

The Wolverine WVR-9K (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3581/wolverine-wvr-9k) has its Battle Value listed as 1,397 (which matches SSW). According to my calculations (as well as those from MML), the BV for this unit should be 1,420. The calculations are as follows:

==========================================================================================================BattleMech Battle Value---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Defensive Battle Rating: 775.288 Offensive Battle Rating: (+) 644.868 = 1,420.156----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Final BattleMech Battle Value: 1,420This is due to the fact that SSW did not factor in the modified damage for the sword as a result of TSM.

The Wolverine WVR-9K (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3581/wolverine-wvr-9k) has its Battle Value listed as 1,397 (which matches SSW). According to my calculations (as well as those from MML), the BV for this unit should be 1,420. The calculations are as follows:

Please review the Rokurokubi RK-4T damage line. I believe it should be zero for the long range bracket. It has a long range damage of 1, but is only equipped with a light AC/5 which does damage up to medium range.

If this correction is valid the point value should come down to 25 as well.

Please review the Rokurokubi RK-4T damage line. I believe it should be zero for the long range bracket. It has a long range damage of 1, but is only equipped with a light AC/5 which does damage up to medium range.

If this correction is valid the point value should come down to 25 as well.

The Seraph C-SRP-OR (Ravana) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2875/seraph-c-srp-or-ravana) has its Battle Value listed as 1,941 (which matches SSW). According to my calculations (as well as those from MML), the BV for this unit should be 1,957. The calculations are as follows:

The Basilisk Quad-B (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5835/basilisk-protomech-quad-b) has an AS card with a 1/1/0 damage rating. Given that BQ-B is unarmed save for the melee weapon(WoR Supp, pg 43), shouldn't the damage be 0/0/0?

The text is actually rather vague for calculating Heat-modified damage: the main problem is that it says to modify the "base damage values", (ASC p. 115) but there's no definition as to what that is. On p. 99, where you first calculate your damage values, it says "At the most basic level" you round when calculating damage (ASC p. 99), and then, right after that, it says "the damage values determined here" are used if you have to modify for heat.

I can easily see why some would round up to the nearest whole number before applying heat, rather than after. I'll see about adding clarifying notes to p. 99 and p. 115 (and I have to update my conversion spreadsheet, since I made the same mistake).

There's two different points at which you round.as part of heat modification (p115) = round up to nearest tenth.final value (p99) = round to whole number. (Up for standard damage values, normal for special abilities).

Ah, gotcha. Yes, the rounded to whole number values should not then be heat-modified. Heat-modification comes first.It should also clarify the rounding to tenth in heat-modification happens even if the unit is otherwise not heat modified.

1. Total up all damage values.2. Heat Modify as necessary for heat modified damage values.3. Round damage values up to nearest one-tenth (even if not heat modified)4. Round (up for standard, normal for special abilities) to nearest whole number for final damage values.

Step 3 is necessary even if damage values do not qualify to be heat modified because otherwise it's possible for heat to actually raise a damage value. That would be silly :).

I don't mean to argue with the process here, but I'd like point out that "OV" values have always been whole numbers. The reason I think the way I converted is correct is because there isn't enough "heat reduction" to warrant an OV value.

The Basilisk Quad-B (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5835/basilisk-protomech-quad-b) has an AS card with a 1/1/0 damage rating. Given that BQ-B is unarmed save for the melee weapon(WoR Supp, pg 43), shouldn't the damage be 0/0/0?

the Micro Pulse laser's heat still counts toward medium range calculations. All weapons count toward short and medium, regardless of their own range limitations.

nckestrel,

I am sorry. I did not understand your statement earlier. Now I see what you are saying. I would just ask that this be clarified, because nothing in the AS companion suggest weapons contribute heat outside their range band. Or at least I have not found it.

It's not so much that it specifically states to use all weapons for non-Long-range OV as much as it says only to separate out Long and always refers to "maximum heat output" rather than any sort of segregated heat output. But yes, it could be clearer.

The "Heat-Modified Damage" paragraph talks about developing the modified damage per each range bracket With the "calculating Overheat Value" saying you use the medium, if avaliable, to determine the OV.

Also the "Determining Overheat" talks about it it "at a given range bracket"

Thug THG-11E (Reich): I believe the listed source TRO, Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade, is incorrect as I can find no mention of it on the Thug's entry, p. 216. Source should be Field Manual: Mercenaries Supplemental 2, p. 64.

-----

http://masterunitlist.info/Source/Details/268

Cover picture for Field Manual: Mercenaries is incorrect. That is the cover of Field Manual: Mercenaries Revised.

-----

Also, I don't know if it's an error or just a limitation of the system, but searching for "Rubinsky" only brings up the Scorpion SCP-1N (Rubinsky) (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4994/scorpion-scp-1n-rubinsky) and Archer ARC-2R (Rubinsky) (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3722/archer-arc-2r-rubinsky). To find the Rifleman variants Rubinsky 1 and Rubinsky 2, you have to search for "Rubinsky 1" and "Rubinsky 2" respectively. Meanwhile, searching for "cat" brings up every unit with the letters c-a-t in the name.(unchecking the BV box worked. my bad.)

Thug THG-11E (Reich): I believe the listed source TRO, Technical Readout: 3050 Upgrade, is incorrect as I can find no mention of it on the Thug's entry, p. 216. Source should be Field Manual: Mercenaries Supplemental 2, p. 64.

Both the Uziel UZL-3S (Jacob) and the UZL-3S (Jacob II) are missing the Wolf's Dragoons from their faction availability. Even as a Unique machine, their respective affiliation is pretty concrete. The Jacob is also listed as "Extinct" in its era, which seems... odd, despite the existence of the Jacob II. There has to be a better way to indicate that they never existed simultaneously than that.

There's gotta be a better way to mark that. I hate to suggest adding more work for you guys, but perhaps an "Extinct" date, as well as an introduction date? The way the MUL reads now, the Jacob never... actually existed. It just popped as "Extinct" one day.

In the case of Jacob, it would not kick in until the next era. No worries there. A unit doesn't get extinct in its first era of its existence. (Now that it is written I'm sure we will find some exception out there.)

Using Butterbee as an example,http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/479/catapult-cplt-c1-jenny-butterbee

The Unique tag should be removed for the Jihad and Extinct should be added to all later eras. That is how they will be handled.

Hey all, hope this is going in the right place, and not sure if its errata or just something I don't understand yet. Was in the process of putting together a Call to Arms force, and in picking the Naginata (any of the variants), there is no LRM#/#/# value in the special abilities. Thanks for the answer when you get a chance, cheers!

The Lumberjack, specifically the MilitiaMech version (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7177/lumberjack-lm5m-militiamech) has some sort of error with the Alpha Strike card. It won't display, and the direct link doesn't work.

The Lumberjack, specifically the MilitiaMech version (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7177/lumberjack-lm5m-militiamech) has some sort of error with the Alpha Strike card. It won't display, and the direct link doesn't work.

Same here:http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7175/uni-atae-70t-cargomechhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7176/jabberwocky-jaw-67-militiamech

So I love the MUL, it's been very handy as a returning Battletech player getting into Alpha Strike!

Would it be possible to tweak/expand the search and results though? When I'm trying to build a new force right now (I'm really new) the MUL is great for providing unit cards and filtering sources and such, but doesn't really help me narrow down unit choices.

So I wanted to build an Assault Lance, and I need 3 mechs of SZ 3+, all with at least 5 Armor, plus one Juggernaught or 2 Snipers.

All I can narrow down is the SZ (80-100 tons) and the role. Using the 3050U as the only source, that kicks back 39 Juggernauts from 80-100 tons. But I have no idea how much armor they have. I can add each one to a force and then see a list of them that shows [A-S] S/M/L (OV), but that's tedious as heck, plus I still won't know their TMM, MV, or Special Abilities. I'll have to open each unit individually just to see those stats on their card.

Frankly it makes the idea of building a force very off-putting.

Two changes I'd love to see to the MUL: First would be to expand what you can filter by with Alpha Strike. At the very least, TMM would be nice, but the more options the better. Second, I really wish the results were more useful for picking units--meaning if they showed the stats that are listed when you add them to your force, including TMM/MV and Specials.

Even if we couldn't get the narrower filters, just having results that included those stats would make it a lot less daunting to pick out units for a force. :)

Quick question about Royals and their kin: would it be possible to give them a "reintroduction" date to go along with the original date they were introduced? It would be pretty handy for fluffy era play.

~~I would LOVE to have the ability to search for special abilities of each mech. I have been trying to build a command lance where each member uses C3I or maybe C3M/C3S. To do this with MUL, I have to filter down to the list of mechs that seem to fit the role I want and then open every single one and check their specials.~~

I believe some of the "Salamandar Battle Armor" PVs somehow got played with (I have previously printed values that no longer match the MUL, but after inspecting the ASC errata, there should not have been a change).

[Laser]: http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2788/salamander-battle-armor-laser10 PV for "CAR4" and "CAR5" cards, [and CAR6]11 PV for "CAR6"; this card should also have a Short Range Damage value of 3. **

Recently found this errata that has not made it into the MUL. The Cavalry (Infantry) (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/503/cavalry-attack-helicopter-infantry) needs to be corrected and the Cavalry (BA) needs an entry.

Damage amounts of 0* count as doing damage. Per ASC p. 141, units like all variants of the Salamander BA, that move 6" and can deliver damage at medium range do not need to have their final point values modified. There's no requirement that the unit can deliver a minimum of 1 damage, just that it delivers damage. A recent update to battle armor listings in the MUL (you'll notice that there are BVs for 4, 5, and 6 man squads) caught these discrepancies and updated them.

The Salamander (Laser) BA are equipped with a flamer, and ER micro laser, and a SRM 1 (OS) which do 0.2, 0.2, and 0.02 damage respectively for a total of 0.42. Times the troop factor for CAR6 (4.5) the raw damage value is 1.89 which rounds to 2.

With the errata to p.138:Damage amounts of 0* count as doing damage. Per ASC p. 141, units like all variants of the Salamander BA, that move 6" and can deliver damage at medium range do not need to have their final point values modified. There's no requirement that the unit can deliver a minimum of 1 damage, just that it delivers damage. A recent update to battle armor listings in the MUL (you'll notice that there are BVs for 4, 5, and 6 man squads) caught these discrepancies and updated them. ...

I have already made that edit to my copy of the ASC. The way I had interpreted it, however, was that the "0.5" remains throughout all three range bands, and that the "1" for Medium Range was supposed to just be short-hand for "0.5 + 0.5" (since Medium range is added twice when summing for OFV). Have I assumed wrong?

...The Salamander (Laser) BA are equipped with a flamer, and ER micro laser, and a SRM 1 (OS) which do 0.2, 0.2, and 0.02 damage respectively for a total of 0.42. Times the troop factor for CAR6 (4.5) the raw damage value is 1.89 which rounds to 2.

You... are correct. That's what I get for using old spreadsheets. I will edit my previous post. (sorry for the headache)

I have already made that edit to my copy of the ASC. The way I had interpreted it, however, was that the "0.5" remains throughout all three range bands, and that the "1" for Medium Range was supposed to just be short-hand for "0.5 + 0.5" (since Medium range is added twice when summing for OFV). Have I assumed wrong?

Actually, that part you assumed completely correctly. *I* however, made an error and have gone and recalculated the PV of all BA with a medium range damage value of 0*. I've recalcualted the PV of all affected units and will have them all entered ASAP.

*EDIT* Battle armor units with a medium range damage of 0* previously had an incorrect PV. All affected units have been corrected. Cards should update in the next 24 hours.

However, if a unit has a damage value of 0* at a particular range it counts as being able to do damage at that range for the purposes of any final PV modification based on a units speed and maximum range. In other words, none of the Salamander BA are subject to any final PV modifications noted in Step 3 on ASC p. 141.

The weapon listing for the [Laser] variant of the Salamander you gave is the correct listing (verified when I opened up my 3058 pdf). The only excuse I have is, beside writing the wrong values down, that I included the Anti-Personnel bonus (since the box is unchecked, this error is mine).

I will respect that "might do damage" is a qualifier to negate the PV reduction as you outlined. [I'm not happy about it, but that's an opinion ;) ] Something more clear and definitive should be added to page 141 so someone else doesn't follow my mistake.

Since it was asked elsewhere, I'll ask it here, any idea when the new artwork for the unseens will be used on the MUL and AS cards? Is that something where we need to wait for the artwork to appear in a published product or is the preview artwork good enough?

Since it was asked elsewhere, I'll ask it here, any idea when the new artwork for the unseens will be used on the MUL and AS cards? Is that something where we need to wait for the artwork to appear in a published product or is the preview artwork good enough?

When its published, or TPTB tell us to, whichever is sooner. I don't recall an instance of the second happening yet though, so unless something surprising happens, when it's published.

Could I put in a feature request? I think it'd be fantastic to be able to choose the number of cards the AS Force Builder prints per sheet. 8 per sheet in two columns is easy enough to organize for IS units, but Clan, C*/WOB, Marian, and other odd balls get left out in the ease of access. Being able to choose whether 3, 4, or 5 cards printed per column would be fantastic.

Could I put in a feature request? I think it'd be fantastic to be able to choose the number of cards the AS Force Builder prints per sheet. 8 per sheet in two columns is easy enough to organize for IS units, but Clan, C*/WOB, Marian, and other odd balls get left out in the ease of access. Being able to choose whether 3, 4, or 5 cards printed per column would be fantastic.

The same goes for Battle Armor formations when using the Force Builder. Unless I missed it, all the BA formations default to 4-man squads.

Reporting a bug: Rommel (Howitzer) and the Howitzer prototype AlphaStrike cards are missing the ARTLTC-1 in their respective TUR specials. (The card does list the special, they're just not listed in the turret)http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4934/rommel-tank-howitzerhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4933/rommel-tank-howitzer-prototype

As a side note, though I'm not very far through the MUL, I've noticed that nothing seems to have availabilities in the Age of War, Star League, Early Succession Wars, and Late Republic Eras. (I read that most won't have a Dark Ages availability). Is this something that's being worked on or just not available yet?

This might be more of a question than an errata at this point. Didn't really know whereas to ask, but since I caught this while doing BV checks, I figured I'd ask here.

The Rifleman IIC 6 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2715/rifleman-iic-6) is listed as having a BV of 2,251, which matches the unit pre-loaded in SSW.

My calculation has the BV at 2,220, which matches the unit pre-loaded in MML.

The difference appears to be due to the fact that SSW version has an ER Small Laser mounted in the head. The unit as it appears in Record Sheets: 3085 Unabridged — Project Phoenix does not have this ER Small Laser, but it is half a ton underweight. I could not find errata anywhere which stated the RS in the official product is incorrect. So, do you know if the RS is correct, at which point the MUL is wrong?

The BV for the Jenner JR10-X (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1686/jenner-jr10-x) is listed incorrectly as 1,269. I've actually no idea where this number comes from. The number in SSW matches the record sheet with 1,452. This number is also incorrect, however. My calculations (below) show the BV as 1,419, which also matches that in MML.

The 1,269 value is correct. Per this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=48436.msg1127538#msg1127538) TacOps errata, the heat from the Null-Signature System is now factored into BV calculations. Same goes for the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield and the Void-Signature System. All parts of your calculations were correct except that due to the above errata, three of the six medium lasers have their BVs halved due to the cumulative heat exceeding the 'Mechs calculated heat efficiency.

Two changes I'd love to see to the MUL: First would be to expand what you can filter by with Alpha Strike. At the very least, TMM would be nice, but the more options the better. Second, I really wish the results were more useful for picking units--meaning if they showed the stats that are listed when you add them to your force, including TMM/MV and Specials.

Even if we couldn't get the narrower filters, just having results that included those stats would make it a lot less daunting to pick out units for a force. :)

I'm running into similar issues now. I'd like to add that it would also be helpful to see each unit's full set of specials. Comparing units and weighing options comes with so much overhead when I have to open every single unit.

I also have been cross referencing every unit in sarna.net, since there I can find helpful writeups about each unit's history and usage in canon. If there were a simple url link to the sarna page, that would speed up my process significantly.

The 1,269 value is correct. Per this (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=48436.msg1127538#msg1127538) TacOps errata, the heat from the Null-Signature System is now factored into BV calculations. Same goes for the Chameleon Light Polarization Shield and the Void-Signature System. All parts of your calculations were correct except that due to the above errata, three of the six medium lasers have their BVs halved due to the cumulative heat exceeding the 'Mechs calculated heat efficiency.

Thanks. I should've known this since I was the cause (or at least asked the question that sparked the change) of the heat now being factored into the BV!! :)

The BV for the Goliath GOL-5W is listed incorrectly as 2,030. My calculations, along with those of MML and SSW, all come to 2,006. So I'm not sure where the calculation may be off (perhaps not factoring heat for Stealth??). Here is my breakdown:

The BV for the Vindicator VND-3LD (Dao) is listed incorrectly as 1,657. My calculations, along with those of MML, come to 1,639. SSW calculates it as 1,814, which also matches the record sheet. So I'm not sure where the calculation may be off. Here is my breakdown I have:

I noticed the Ti Ts'ang TSG-9H (Jason), as detailed in Dossiers: Jason Zaklan (http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2747) is not listed in the MUL. Is this an omission or is this intentional for some reason?

The BV for the Rifleman RFL-9T (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2707/rifleman-rfl-9t) is listed incorrectly as 1,416. My calculations, along with those of MML, come to 1,503. SSW also calculates it as 1,416. Part of the difference appears to be due to heat from Stealth armor, but the totals for weapon BV don't even come close to adding up right. So probably multiple things going on with SSW. Here is the breakdown I have:

The FLE-4 is missing Wolf's Dragoons faction availability. It was introduced (in canon sources, anyway) in the WD sourcebook, is noted as being manufactured for them under contract, and the FLE-15 is available to the Dragoons.

Datatable sortingIt'd be nice to be able to sort by columns on the Alpha Strike Force Builder search results because sometimes the results list can be a bit long and they're not usually in alphabetical order. I'd like to see at least the Name, Intro (Era) and PV columns being sortable.

Since it appears that the JQuery DataTables class is being used it should be a trivial (one or two lines of Javascript) feature addition :)

(http://jdgwf.com/bt/screenshots/mul-feature-request-sorting.png)

Alpha Strike Card Point CostI've noticed that the pricing on the Alpha Strike cards preview images doesn't change with the skill level, but the skill rating on the card does. Could this be fixed? It's probably a non-issue since the PDF creator does the calculations correctly, though and these images are for preview for the most part.

The FLE-4 is missing Wolf's Dragoons faction availability. It was introduced (in canon sources, anyway) in the WD sourcebook, is noted as being manufactured for them under contract, and the FLE-15 is available to the Dragoons.

It looks like the new Fleas made for the dragoons were not the -4 but the -15 model. It looks like they should probably have access but only for the LosTech era. Two FLE-4 mechs doesn't justify access to it in the post 4SW eras.

Some Alpha Strike Force Builder requests:1. As unit skill values are changed, it would be nice to have an average computed and the Point Value Skill Rating for the force displayed (i.e, Regular, Veteran, Elite, etc.). This would allow folks creating forces based on the new Combat Manual books to know they're in compliance for the unit they're modeling.

2. Allow reordering of units after they've been added to the list to facilitate grouping into Formations to be printed together. For example, if a choice is changed and the 3rd unit added to the force is deleted and a replacement added, the new unit appears at the bottom of the list and an entire force of 12 must be rebuilt in order to get the Lances to print together.

3. Once a Formation has skills assigned and units grouped into Lances (or Stars or Level IIs), it would be nice to be able to assign SCAs and SPAs and perhaps have cards generated with those reference descriptions. Alternatively, SCA and SPA descriptions could appear on the Unit List summary page if formatting them on cards is undesirable for some reason.

4. Save / Load ability to avoid regenerating Formations from scratch every time. Perhaps a simple XML file with Unit IDs and Skill ratings would do. Everything else could be requeried or recomputed from the database upon Load.

Thanks for all the truly EXCELLENT work on this to date. It's an amazing resource.

I think the BV for the Lich UABM-2R (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7385/lich-uabm-2r) is incorrect. It's difficult to tell because the BV calculations for this unit in MML and SSW are all over the place and don't match what is listed in the MUL nor what my calculations come out to. The MUL lists the BV as 1,719. My calculation yields 1,712. I know the calculation is tricky because of how the armor multiplier is applied per location. Here's my calculation:

The BV for the Raptor II RPT-2X (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2657/raptor-ii-rpt-2x) is incorrectly listed as 936. My calculations along with those of MML generate a BV of 896. I believe the discrepancy could be related to the recent errata concerning the Void-Signature System and its heat impact towards BV. My calculations are as follows:

The BV for the Raptor II RPT-2X1 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2658/raptor-ii-rpt-2x1) is incorrectly listed as 1471. My calculations along with those of MML generate a BV of 1274. I believe the discrepancy could be related to the recent errata concerning the Void-Signature System and its heat impact towards BV. My calculations are as follows:

I think the BV for the Lich UABM-2R (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7385/lich-uabm-2r) is incorrect. It's difficult to tell because the BV calculations for this unit in MML and SSW are all over the place and don't match what is listed in the MUL nor what my calculations come out to. The MUL lists the BV as 1,719. My calculation yields 1,712. I know the calculation is tricky because of how the armor multiplier is applied per location. Here's my calculation:

The 1,719 is correct. You applied the 0.8 BV modifier to the Light Gauss Rifle's ammo which p.381 of TacOps notes not to do.

I suspect your Raptor II calculations are correct and I mis-clicked with I updated affect BVs with the Void Sig errata. I'll be able to verify a bit later tonight.

The 1,719 is correct. You applied the 0.8 BV modifier to the Light Gauss Rifle's ammo which p.381 of TacOps notes not to do.

You are correct (of course). Sorry about that. I usually manage to figure out what's wrong with my calculation or the MUL based on what I see in MML and/or SSW. But because these were way off this time, I was stumped. The more you know...

Another Raptor BV issue, this time with the Raptor II RPT-3X (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2659/raptor-ii-rpt-3x). This one does not appear to be related to the Void-Signature System though as my calculations; as well as those from MML, come out to 1304. The BV listed in the MUL is 1301. SSW is way off, so not 100% sure where the discrepancy is. Here is my BV breakdown.

It would be really nice to have a filter feature that resulted in a list of Units UNIQUE to a Faction in a given period. Put another way for example, the option to select Capellan Confederation and exclude all other Faction affiliation.

That would really help new players quickly give a distinctive faction flavor to their builds.

The D-M3D-3 Diomede (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/901/diomede-d-m3d-3-constructionmech)'s Alpha Strike card lists it as having basic fire control, while TRO 3085 page 111 has a note specifically saying the Diomede has advanced fire control. The Diomede-4 is also listed with BFC, though the TRO has no note clarifying this issue for that variant, and their record sheets don't say anything either way. Might have to ask whoever designed the thing.

The BV for the Stealth STH-5X (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5130/stealth-sth-5x) is incorrectly listed as 2222. My calculations along with those of MML come to 2155. I believe the issue may be due to the recent errata regarding the Chameleon LPS and its impact on heat efficiency ratings. Below if my calculation:

I noticed that all units with a single AC 5 do not have the AC ability listed (AC0/1/1). This appears to be an error in rounding for the AC ability as the Companion states "As a general rule, the attack values for damage-delivering special unit abilities such as AC#/#/#, LRM#/#/#, and SRM#/# are computed by adding together the specific damage values for all of the appropriate weapons involved, then rounding the result normally."

Then is this an errata? Because this is not what the Companion states. According to the Companion P116, the damage should be rounded normally.

Special Unit Ability Damage ValuesAs a general rule, the attack values for damage-deliveringspecial unit abilities such as AC#/#/#, LRM#/#/#, and SRM#/# arecomputed by adding together the specific damage values for allof the appropriate weapons involved, then rounding the resultnormally.This is similar to how a unit’s normal attack valuesare computed, except that these values include only those forthe weapons specified by the ability, and are not subject toheat modification. The special unit ability that applies for anygiven weapon system is noted in its entry on the appropriateconversion tables.

A unit receives this special if it carries any number of light or standard autocannons that can deliver 1 or more pointsof damage at Medium range after heat-modification and before final damage value rounding.

ASC p.126 Long-Range Missiles (LRM#/#/#)

Quote

A unit receives this special if it carries any number of standard or enhanced LRM and/or MML launchers that, whencombined, are capable of delivering 1 or more points of damage at Medium range after heat-modification and before final damage value rounding.

ASC p. 131 Short-Range Missiles (SRM#/#)

Quote

A unit receives this special if it carries any number of standard SRM and/or MML launchers that, when combined, are capable of delivering 1 or more points of damage at Medium range after heat-modification and before final damage value rounding.

So if there isn't at least one point of damage for a particular special ability at medium range prior to final rounding, the unit doesn't qualify for that particular type of special ability.

The Chameleon TRC-4B (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/546/chameleon-trc-4b) in the MUL shows the unit is available in the RS 3058 Uu-I but when I check the actually book that unit doesn't exist.

But there is a Chameleon CLN-4V which is missing from the MUL. I'm wondering if these are different units or the same. If they are the same which would be the correct designation.

On the Aerospace fighter cards the Engine Hit critical is listed as "1/4" move. The Critical hit as described in Alpha strike page 58 says...

Engine Hit (Aerospace Fighters, Conventional Fighters, and Fixed-Wing Support Vehicles): The unit’s power system is damaged. For fighters and fixed-wing support vehicles, the first engine hit reduces the unit to half its Thrust rating (round down, to a minimum of 1 Thrust lost).

Although I know it's still a "draft" era, the availabilities for the Skandi VTOL seem funky for the Early Republic time period.

You are going to have to be more specific.Note the intro date of 3099, and the Early Republic era ends in 3100. It didn't spread to everyone that first year.Or is there a specific faction that should or should not be listed?

You are going to have to be more specific.Note the intro date of 3099, and the Early Republic era ends in 3100. It didn't spread to everyone that first year.Or is there a specific faction that should or should not be listed?

Sorry, right. It was first produced by the Jade Falcons on Pandora (they're missing from the faction list), but I'd also be surprised if the Republic of the Sphere were to buy it from them. Then the Lyrans took control of the planet at some point, but I'm not sure when that happened.

This is listed as being 200 tons, but this is in fact the 100 ton Fighter from XTRO Phantoms. The rest of the data is correct (it shows up under Fighters in the MUL). However, the image is wrong as it should use the image of the NL-42 according to XTRO Phantoms.

This is listed as being 200 tons, but this is in fact the 100 ton Fighter from XTRO Phantoms. The rest of the data is correct (it shows up under Fighters in the MUL). However, the image is wrong as it should use the image of the NL-42 according to XTRO Phantoms.

Tonnage fixed. Unless I'm missing some errata somewhere, that is the image out of the XTRO and directly from the record sheet.

Sorry, right. It was first produced by the Jade Falcons on Pandora (they're missing from the faction list), but I'd also be surprised if the Republic of the Sphere were to buy it from them. Then the Lyrans took control of the planet at some point, but I'm not sure when that happened.

Yep, I missed the change. Skadi is Clan Jade Falcon only for the Early Republic era.

according to the MUL the Grenadier II D configuration is available only to the RoTS and not to the FS.However we have the following description from XTRO:Republic volume 3 page 16 "Having self-supporting artillery deployed by battle armor also added to the Capellans’ confusionon Marlette."

According to TRO 3150 the defending unit that fought on this FS world was the 5th Crucis Lancers, a FS unit.It seems to me this configuration should also be available to the FS.

The Battle Value for the Wendigo C (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6406/wendigo-c) appears to be incorrectly listed as 2,548. My calculations along with those from MML come out to 2,623. The calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Wendigo C (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6406/wendigo-c) appears to be incorrectly listed as 2,548. My calculations along with those from MML come out to 2,623. The calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Quickdraw QKD-8X (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2617/quickdraw-qkd-8x) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,580. My calculations along with those from MML come out to 1,612. Not quite sure where the discrepancy may lie. The calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Violator VT-U1 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6503/violator-vt-u1) appears to be incorrectly listed as 926. My calculations along with those from MML come out to 928. Not quite sure where the discrepancy may lie. The calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Tenshi TN-10-OA (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6422/tenshi-tn-10-oa) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,830. My calculations come out to 1,829 (a small difference). MML appears way off because they subtract 15 for some reason. Probably just some rounding error, my calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Beowulf BEO-14 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/328/beowulf-beo-14) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,265. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,287. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Ti Ts'ang TSG-9C (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3252/ti-tsang-tsg-9c) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,950. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,989. My calculations are as follows:

There currently isn't a way to add the cost to the table without doing it for everybody. I'm not sure we have room for cost without replacing another column (or at least for screen resolutions of 1920 or less.) The mobile version is even more pressed for space. Side note on the subject: Less than half of the units in the MUL actually have a CBill cost so I'm not sure if it will really be useful to add it only to see a lot of 0s.

The Battle Value for the Thunder Stallion 3 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3226/thunder-stallion-3) appears to be incorrectly listed as 2,667 (which matches MML). My calculations come out to 2,631. I believe the discrepancy is due to the fact that the ammo in the right front leg is not being counted as explosive whereas it should as per the latest BV rules. My calculations are as follows:

All Hollander III variants (BZK-D1 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6333/hollander-iii-bzk-d1), BZK-D2 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6334/hollander-iii-bzk-d2), and BZK-D3 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6335/hollander-iii-bzk-d3)) are listed as being Standard. However, due to the fact each has Laser Reflective armor, they should be listed as Advanced.

The Battle Value for the Scarecrow UCU-F4 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6336/scarecrow-ucu-f4) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,410. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,475. Discrepancies could be due to BV rule changes for Chameleon LPS? My calculations are as follows:

All Hollander III variants (BZK-D1 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6333/hollander-iii-bzk-d1), BZK-D2 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6334/hollander-iii-bzk-d2), and BZK-D3 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6335/hollander-iii-bzk-d3)) are listed as being Standard. However, due to the fact each has Laser Reflective armor, they should be listed as Advanced.

The Battle Value for the Templar III TLR2-OB (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6355/templar-iii-tlr2-ob) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,918. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,919. It's only a 1 point discrepancy, so it may have just been a rounding thing My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Jenner JR7-K (Grace) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1696/jenner-jr7-k-grace) appears to be incorrectly listed as 737. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 702. My calculations are as follows:

Issue: the Alpha-Strike card for the Behemoth II appears to be missing an "IF" value per the conversion information in the ASC.. [8x Thunderbolt_5 = 2.34/4.0/4.0 damage; IF# = Long Range damage, or 4.0]

Suggested changes:. Add "IF4" to the listed specials. Adjust "TUR" special to include "IF4". Adjust "PV" to 50. . PV calculations: 26 OFV + 24.25 DFV + 0 GFB. Adjust Role to "Missile Boat" (over 50% of the damage at Long Range is dealt by the missile systems)

The Battle Value for the Gurkha GUR-8G (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5664/gurkha-gur-8g) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,229 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,241. The discrepancy appears to be a result of SSW not factoring in TSM for the BV of the retractable blade. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Chimera CMA-2K (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5667/chimera-cma-2k) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,507 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,528. The discrepancy appears to be a result of SSW not factoring in TSM for the BV of the sword. My calculations are as follows:

However, when I searched using the search bar in the upper right, 5 Laments showed up with no problem and the following URL was generated

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=Lament

I *think* what's going on, is that its the Alpha Strike Filter that's messing things up. Even after telling the MUL to Clear the filters, the default filter for AS seems to be Ambusher. That's the following part of the first URL posted.

&Role=112

I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be the default behavior of the Unit search as it seems rather..counterproductive.

The Alpha Strike stats for the Mad Cat Mk IV (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=mad+cat+mk+iv) family are off. As per Alpha Strike Companion pg 98, the Structure Value for a 75 ton Clan 'Mech with an XXL engine should be three; the MUL Alpha Strike Card gives it as two

The Battle Value for the No-Dachi NDA-3S (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5692/no-dachi-nda-3s) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,679. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,706. I'm guessing it's related to the damage adjustment of the Mace due to TSM. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Mad Cat (Timber Wolf) Z (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5822/mad-cat-timber-wolf-z) appears to be incorrectly listed as 3,003 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 2,923. The discrepancy appears to be related to the weapon BV modification due to the heat efficiency calculation. My calculations are as follows:

Some re-engineered laser errataThe Ebony MEB-13 should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6943/ebony-meb-13The Spider SDR-10K should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6934/spider-sdr-10kThe Emperor EMP-8L should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6851/emperor-emp-8lThe Sagittaire SGT -14D should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6835/sagittaire-sgt-14dThe Sagittari SGT-4R should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6817/sagittarii-sgt-4r

The Night Stalker NSR-K7 should lose the REL ability because according to the conversion rules from AS companion you have to cause 1 unit of damage in the medium range bracket (may be we need to errata it to short range or small re-engineered lasers will never give the REL ability)http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6720/night-stalker-nsr-k7

Any suggestions? I can't get any Alpha strike force to print. I've turned off my pop up blocker. I've updated adobe. I've tried chrome and edge. I'm out of ideas.

In the meantime, expanding the default card, or customizing the card to include changing skill (and skill based PV increases/decreases) and then copying the image into an image editing software of your choice to save as -> insert into word document -> arrange -> print works, but is incredibly cumbersome and irritating.

The value for the Structural Cost + Weapon/Equipment Cost is a bit lengthy, but the only item without a nicely rounded cost is the 280 Fusion Engine, which has a cost of 1,306,666.667 (rounded for brevity per the errata). My theory is that the cost was rounded up before plugging it into the Final Unit Cost Formula, which results in a final value of 6,023,383.9, which rounds up to 6,023,384.

No problem. For the other suggestion, it is above my pay grade. I think the answer will stay no but TPTB can see it and confirm or change their answer.

Edit: I should have included this in the prior message. For a work around, save the cards as either jpgs or pngs. You can then use your OS print feature to print several on a page. That printing could be paper or if you want that pdf, a free pdf printer that are readily available.

The Battle Value for the Jenner JR7-K (Grace) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1696/jenner-jr7-k-grace) appears to be incorrectly listed as 737. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 702. My calculations are as follows:

BV per the RS listed would be 706 with 81 points of armor though that put it 0.5 tons overweight. 80 points of armor brings the weight back into line though I couldn't find any errata after a quick search. With 80 points of armor, the BV would be 702.

The Battle Value for the Gurkha GUR-8G (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5664/gurkha-gur-8g) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,229 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,241. The discrepancy appears to be a result of SSW not factoring in TSM for the BV of the retractable blade. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the No-Dachi NDA-3S (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5692/no-dachi-nda-3s) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,679. My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,706. I'm guessing it's related to the damage adjustment of the Mace due to TSM. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Chimera CMA-2K (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5667/chimera-cma-2k) appears to be incorrectly listed as 1,507 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 1,528. The discrepancy appears to be a result of SSW not factoring in TSM for the BV of the sword. My calculations are as follows:

The Battle Value for the Mad Cat (Timber Wolf) Z (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5822/mad-cat-timber-wolf-z) appears to be incorrectly listed as 3,003 (which matches SSW). My calculations (as well as those from MML) come out to 2,923. The discrepancy appears to be related to the weapon BV modification due to the heat efficiency calculation. My calculations are as follows:

Correct and MUL updated.

All relevant units have had their BVs updated after the re-engineered laser BV adjustments.

No problem. For the other suggestion, it is above my pay grade. I think the answer will stay no but TPTB can see it and confirm or change their answer.

Edit: I should have included this in the prior message. For a work around, save the cards as either jpgs or pngs. You can then use your OS print feature to print several on a page. That printing could be paper or if you want that pdf, a free pdf printer that are readily available.

Thx for the hint. Print function still isnt working. I thought it was a problem with my computer ;D

* VERSION: MUL Online* LOCATION: Mad Cat Mk II (Standard) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4565/mad-cat-mk-ii-standard)* THE ERROR: MUL Online says that the Intro date of Mad Cat Mk.II (Standard) is 3066. However, Technical Readout: 3067 (Corrected Fourth Printing) with in-universe date of 3067 clearly says that "the Mad Cat Mk II has now been in production for more than half a decade" (p.132, the right column). So if "more than half a decade" is approximately six years, that means that the Intro date is 3067-6=3061.* THE CORRECTION: The Intro date of Mad Cat Mk.II should be changed to 3061.

Thanks. Changed to 3062 to keep the Civil War era, and TR 3067 in universe date is Dec 3067. So 5 years would be Dec 3062, and the more than that would be however many months they started production earlier than Dec in 3062. The TR also has them starting the new project "at the beginning of the decade" and to full-scale production in less than 15 months. If they started late 3060, that could put them in to 3062 as well. And I'd rather not change the era if I don't have to.

Issue: the Alpha-Strike card for the Behemoth II appears to be missing an "IF" value per the conversion information in the ASC.. [8x Thunderbolt_5 = 2.34/4.0/4.0 damage; IF# = Long Range damage, or 4.0]

Suggested changes:. Add "IF4" to the listed specials. Adjust "TUR" special to include "IF4". Adjust "PV" to 50. . PV calculations: 26 OFV + 24.25 DFV + 0 GFB. Adjust Role to "Missile Boat" (over 50% of the damage at Long Range is dealt by the missile systems)

The Alpha Strike stats for the Mad Cat Mk IV (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=mad+cat+mk+iv) family are off. As per Alpha Strike Companion pg 98, the Structure Value for a 75 ton Clan 'Mech with an XXL engine should be three; the MUL Alpha Strike Card gives it as two

Some re-engineered laser errataThe Ebony MEB-13 should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6943/ebony-meb-13The Spider SDR-10K should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6934/spider-sdr-10kThe Emperor EMP-8L should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6851/emperor-emp-8lThe Sagittaire SGT -14D should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6835/sagittaire-sgt-14dThe Sagittari SGT-4R should have the REL special abilityhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6817/sagittarii-sgt-4r

The Night Stalker NSR-K7 should lose the REL ability because according to the conversion rules from AS companion you have to cause 1 unit of damage in the medium range bracket (may be we need to errata it to short range or small re-engineered lasers will never give the REL ability)http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6720/night-stalker-nsr-k7

No, some of the lists I get back (eg. Only Mechs that cost between 1,000,000 to 3,500,00 C-Bills, only from inner sphere, only age of war, Star League, and Early Succession Wars) return a list of around 20 or so, and there's no column for price shown. And I know there used to be, 'cause I've used the MUL before to prove to my players that a certain 'Mech costs X not Y to resolve arguments.

The Jihad era data is listed as Complete, but its missing two 'Mechs, both of which can be found in the Total Chaos book.

AWS-10KM Awesome (Cameron)AS7-D-H Atlas II (Devlin)

Added. The Jihad may be marked as complete for faction data but this can happen when a product adds new units if we don't get them put in right away. Eridani Epsilon are also added. Alpha Strike stats will be entered this weekend.

If we make that change, the 9WD models will no longer show as a variant of the other ones. The MUL will treat it as a completely separate base unit. It will probably be more appropriate to change them all to Zeus X.

The DC didn't even start working on prototype Reactive armor until 3058. The write up in TR3145LC states "whose limited production during the Civil War merely served propaganda." The date should be bumped up to 3062+

The DC didn't even start working on prototype Reactive armor until 3058. The write up in TR3145LC states "whose limited production during the Civil War merely served propaganda." The date should be bumped up to 3062+

Time for that yearly debate....OK, it's off to discussion by the MUL team. Hopefully we'll have an answer sometime. (Last year we agreed that 3054 was wrong, but couldn't settle on 3059 versus 3063).

If there is no Record Sheet listed, then an AS card might not be possible. Please do not list units that don't have an RS listed, thanks.

If there is no record sheet, then how does it have a BV listed? If there really isn't one, please pass that along up the chain to someone who can make one, rather than just asking me to stop asking about it.

The "TRO/RS" category tells you where the record sheet can be found. If it is listed as "None", then no record sheet exists.

Here (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Source/Details/192) is a convenient list of all units on the MUL that currently have "None" as their record sheet source to reference when you come across something like this again.

I see a lot of Omnimech base models, so those would obviously not have cards.

Yet, mysteriously, some of those other units do have cards....

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4556/mackie-msk-7a

So, what gives? How does that work for some units but not others? ???

The record sheets collection for TRO: Prototypes is still in the works. While the stats are published in the book, there's no published sheets. The same goes for all units associated with Historical: Reunification War; published stats but no published record sheets. Incorrectly tagged units have been mostly corrected. :) Others are being looked into.

Would Jade Falcon and Clan Wolf or more clans be able to be added to the MUL for the Mad Cat Mk.II

It says in TRO3067 "Clans Wolf and Jade Falcon, both obvious candidates for sales, have purchased none; neither has Clan Ice Hellion or even Clan Steel Viper (though all field a few won through various Trials).

So Ice Hellion is included on the MUL though but not the other 3.

For the Role?Are you sure it is a Brawler? Is the base variant more a sniper or at least mid range platform rather then brawling? I could see the Mk.II 2 being a brawler but the original?

In reverse order:Ballistic and Rifle are redundant with each other. We haven't had a chance to remove the extra one.

I'll see if I can get the 0 changed to a 5 on the Elemental when I get home from the hospital tonight.

The Mad Cat is more of a mid range brawler. Brawlers are not short ranged units. Brawlers are also called troopers. The CIH entry for the Civil War era is most likely in error. I'll confirm and update.

But how can I start that secret Liao super army? Looking through the working files, it had a date of 3059. I have no clue when that got changed as more recent files have the correct date. It is fixed now.

But how can I start that secret Liao super army? Looking through the working files, it had a date of 3059. I have no clue when that got changed as more recent files have the correct date. It is fixed now.

I think there was a placeholder entry for a "JN-G6L" prototype with the 3059 date from back when I was inventing dates for everything, since I wasn't sure if it would see the light of day or not. This was well before it was decided to have the MUL track faction availability, and we were including everything and the kitchen sink just in case it was useful down the road. Perhaps its entry just got merged with the JN-G7L by accident. My working files are long-gone, of course, but this was probably my mistake.

"Construction of the JN-7GL was sidelined by the decision to restart an OstBosch construction line. Following the disturbing revelations accompanying that failed exercise, the technicians involved volunteered spontaneously to undergo tequila therapy to remove their memories, before spending their remaining days atoning in the proof-reading mines of Capella ..."

...The Hankyu [F] also should have a Jump value of 12", {currently 8"}; though this should not change it's MF calculation (not it's top speed, still uses jump movement)...Beowulf IIC (Standard) -- Among the listed Specials, it's missing the WAT special (per RS_Prototypes), and should be added for Search Result purposes.

A threshold value will only display on the card if the type is "AF" or "CF". I know DropShips and such with multiple firing arcs are beyond the scope of that tool, but small craft (SC) should be able use the same card as fighters.

A threshold value will only display on the card if the type is "AF" or "CF". I know DropShips and such with multiple firing arcs are beyond the scope of that tool, but small craft (SC) should be able use the same card as fighters.

Units small craft sized or larger are not supported by the MUL at this time. It's not just the custom card generator, we can't do canon units of those types correctly either. I don't expect to see that capability added any time soon unfortunately.

How reliable is the Faction Force table in Combat Operations (10979)? Just curious if this is held in same view as a RAT or more reliable source? We talked about wondering if Clan Ice Hellion was a mistake, I think I found where they got the idea to place them on the MUL for the Mk.II though in the first place, among CIH also on that list for Clans is ironically again Jade Falcon and as well Wolf in Exile.

Faction Availability has no rules. It's a brawl between various conflicting sources, opinions, bizarre rituals and occasionally direct intervention by powers beyond the MUL team.

Usually we try to take all sources in to account. If there is a direct conflict (same unit, same time, different answers), then we often prioritize either a current Technical Readout or more recently published source.

But none of those are rules. Thirty years of sourcebooks and dozens if not hundreds of different authors means we can write specific rules, but have to take each case as it comes. You are welcome to make suggestions, that's why this errata thread specifically allows suggestions. We don't require a definitive answer before you ask, because there often isn't one.

Alright thanks! Just trying to help, I kinda understand why reluctant due to the TRO stating that the only ones that would have been in service with Wolf, Jade Falcon, Ice Hellion, and Steel Vipers as noted were only obtained in winning them through various trials. It only says a few so I think there is a little conflict by what a few actually means in terms of numbers. -edit: miss read TRO thought made mention of unknown amount in the Lyran forces.-

I just am a bit surprised by only Diamond Shark and Nova Cat on the MUL I guess for clans. Was expecting or hoping for a few more Clans on that list, at least Wolf in Exile during the Civil War. Find it odd though that Falcon is mentioned both on the RAT and FFT while they despised the mech supposedly.

I just linked those if it was worthy to note them or not for the MUL at least maybe in Jihad and later years. The only source we have for Mk.II in Fedcom Civil war is in 3067 stuff right at the end of it all.

Clan Ghost Bear: Could the argument that since the RAT in Field Manual: Updates does list Ghost Bear with them on the 2nd line battlemechs? I know some in the RAT is contradicted by the TRO (AKA Jade Falcon having them though hating them ect.) BUT Ghost Bear was never mentioned in the TRO at having or not having the mech OR objecting to the mech (at least as far as my research has found). They were business partners with Diamond Shark as mentioned in Field Manual portion of Diamond Sharks. The mech does kinda fit the Ghost Bear profile in fast,agile, firepower, decent protection. They would have been rebuilding a bit after the border conflicts between DCS/Nova Cat and Hells Horses. But it is still on a list for units available somewhat to that faction for selection right?Clan Wolf In Exile: They are listed as posted above in the Combat Operations installment of rules (3067), they do have the Mad Cat Mk.II in their Faction Force Table (still a bit confused if this is worthy or not). There is no contradiction between the TRO and this installment and similar to the Ghost Bear's situation of rebuilding.

Alright, I just was curious I guess about all this, looks like any changes will not happen unless a new TRO is done up, that I don't think will change anything as added, sorry to question it a little bit.

I'm honestly not sure if its a "Ti Ts'ang DCC" with a variant number of TSG-9DDC, or if the extra DDC is an extra identifier, much like a character's name would be, but both XTRO Liao and TRO Prototypes are definitive about the extra DDC

Sure, but there are 4 JR7-K Jenners, and that's not a problem, because they all have different names after them, why is that different for the Rook-X? And are these official name changes, or just MUL changes?

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1011/eyleuka-eyl-4a

Has an intro date of 3068, but the era seems to be set for the Civil War. Not really sure which is correct to be honest.

There one JR7-K and three modified JR7-Ks. That's not the same as two different Rooks with the same designation. Yes, it's errata to XTR Retrotech. It should be in the errata thread for it ( if not, should be added).

If you click that, you get a page that shows all BattleMechs, with intro dates from 3068 to 3075. But if you sort it from lowest to highest, two things interesting pop up.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7398/atlas-ii-as7-d-h-devlinWhich has no date (Still) so I'm not really sure why its being pulled, but maybe the mul recognizes its supposed to be in the Era that the intro years chosen follow..or something like that.

But the big weird one is http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/298/battlemaster-blr-6x

Which has an intro year of 3085. There's no way this should be showing up in the search, and yet it does. It also sort of seems to hang out there. I've changed the parameters on the Years to 3068-3076 and it shows up again. But a search of 3075 to 3084, it doesn't show up.

What you don't see is that there are two date fields. The visible one can be blank or even use text. The internal one for search purposes is strictly numbers. I would guess the dates are mismatched on the battlemaster. I'll have to check.

Shouldn't this be 2572 instead of 2752? The writeup in TR3039 states that it fought in the Reunification War and was introduced in the late 26th Century. Could be a transposing of numbers?

The Crusader was introduced (the 1R) in the late 26th century, not the 3R. The discussion was years ago so I don't remember the specifics, but the 3R couldn't have been the late 26th century model. That's why the 1R entry was created.

Ah, I think I remember why now. The 3R is the 2R without the streak and artemis (ancient battletech lore). But Streaks didn't exist in the late 26th century. So the 1R was a 2R without Streak SRM-2s. The 2R then switched to Streaks. The 3R was then the downgrade model. It didn't go 3R, then 2R, then back to 3R.

Well, since the 1R doesn't exist yet, I'm left off the hook for the not knowing about it. :) But still. This seems to only be an issue because whoever wrote up the 2R didn't read the fluff on the 3R. I would've thought the simplest answer would've been to issue errata and change the name of the 2R to the 4R, then you keep the 3039 fluff intact, and don't have to try to explain why the Star League suddenly started to produce downgraded Crusaders at the height of their technological prowess.

So you get the 3R at 2572 (or something similar) that matches the fluff from 3039

Quote

Introduced in the late twenty-sixth century, the CRD-3R Crusader became the workhorse of the SLDF’s line regiments as they battled Periphery troops during the Reunification War.

Quote

Then you have the 4R at 2649, which is a few years after Streak technology was invented. Which makes sense. Its an advanced version of one of the SLDF's "workhorse" design.

And then after the fall of the Star League as technology declined, the 3R was put back into production as an introtech design as "other manufacturers continued to churn out Crusaders, making them one of the most common heavy BattleMechs in existence." (3039).

I mean, its not like 3075 wasn't already filled with errata (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,5936.0.html). And we're just talking about a single number change (and really, its not like we haven't seen odd numberings before, but hey, TR3075 can take a bit more errata to keep people from pulling their hair out over it). So this way you match the fluff and don't have to try to explain why the Star League downgraded their design at the height of technology.

The way it is now, it seems like the decision was made to ignore the fluff from 3039, create a whole new 'Mech that's never been mentioned as existing before, and create a downgraded 'Mech when they have no reason to really exist. Its like the decision took the most complicated way possible WITH the added bonus of ignoring specific fluff from not all that old of a product.

You didn't go back far enough. TR 3025 talks about the "original Crusaders" superior long range (Phoenix) and short range (hawk) missiles. That had long supposed to mean Artemis and Streak. The 2R just made that official.But Streaks didn't exist in the 26th century (late or otherwise). TechManual lists them as around 2650?Therefore the 2R couldn't have been the original in the late 26th century either.We were going to have to break canon somewhere. We decided interpreting 3039 to be referring to the Crusader in general, and not the 3R in specific, was the less damaging of breaks. There is no solution that doesn't break at least some fluff.

Nope, I went back. :) I just considered the specific of TR3039 to trump the apocryphal, non-specific of TR3025, which was a flawed product.

I mean, there's a reason that CGL rewrote all those entries and did 3039, rather than just reprinting TR3025. To give priority to 3025 seems odd to me. But you've explained your position, and y'all are in charge, so that's that :)

Pursuant to the linked ruling: (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=52024.msg1200628#msg1200628)

Should the Bolla Stealth Tank's Specials be amended to not have C3S (and C3M where appropriate) and their PVs suitably recalculated, since by the ruling they can never use C3? There is no way to turn STL off, and no critical hit, damage, or opponent's action that can disable STL.

I lament the loss of the most hilarious combo in Alpha Strike (now that I'm aware of it), but the points are still being paid for the C3.

Similarly, a number of units (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=STL+PRB&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=) have both STL and PRB. PRB likewise does not work under an ECM field.

No weight listed; as per Wasp chassis, & other record sheets, this should be 30 tons.

Side question - all LAMs are listed as role NONE. I believe LAMs should qualify for role SCOUT (ASC, p135):

Scout units are the speedsters of any force. Designed to serve in the forefront of any action, where they act as reconnaissance elements, Scouts favor mobility over all other considerations. Most Scouts, therefore, tend to be small, lightly armored, and barely armed. Because of this, these units should avoid combat unless in swarms.

The Uller (Kit Fox) I is incorrectly listed with a ground speed of 10''.Should be:6 (base) x 1.25 (supercharger) -1 (modular armor) = 6.5 (rounds up to 7, or 14'').Because of this, the TMM should be +3.PV should be recalculated accordingly.

The Uller (Kit Fox) I is incorrectly listed with a ground speed of 10''.Should be:6 (base) x 1.25 (supercharger) -1 (modular armor) = 6.5 (rounds up to 7, or 14'').Because of this, the TMM should be +3.PV should be recalculated accordingly.

@Adgar76 - Your damage calculation looks good to me (I have 2.17 as well, which rounds UP to 3).I think because the Surat are "CAR5" the 2 Armor bubbles is correct; the "Squad 4" should probably be "Squad 5" (defaults to Clan formation, being a Solahama). ...However, when putting my own formulas in...

Should have "()" around the name "Jason" to match up with other designs.

Also, the abbreviation for the Battletech Dossiers: Jason Zaklan (http://masterunitlist.info/Source/Details/418) should most likely be "BD:JZ" rather than "BT:JZ" to match with the other Battletech Dossiers.

According to RS3075u-AoW, page 100, this should be called the GLD-1R Gladiator (Keller).

Also, the BV should be 1153The record sheet says 1557, but I get 1553. The discrepancy between the MUL and the sheet is perhaps using a previous sheet, or an incorrect MM file (MM shows 1517, but the armor is incorrect).

The Mad Cat Mk II 4 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6850/mad-cat-mk-ii-4) has a Light Active Probe on its record sheet, but the MUL card lacks both LRPB and RCN. Recommend adding LPRB and RCN to the card, and recalculating PV as necessary.

The the Hi-Scout carrier has a drone bay to carry the drones before launching them into battle. It has the bay listed on it's card, but the drones do not have the cargo ability that allows them to technically be carried.

Found a couple of issues with the AlphaStrike conversion of the Hellbringer (Loki)... possibly a discrepancy that wasn't "recomputed" from the recent errata regarding Heat Modified Damage (posted Here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=40232.msg1117187#msg1117187))

You round before doing the check for 1. Without hear, the long range would be 4. With heat, it would be 3. Thus it gets OVL.

...That's not how I've been reading the errata. Rounding has been done after determining final modified damage values, and the difference between the two values must exceed "1" in order to receive an Overheat Value [at any range]. Otherwise, no Overheat?

Plus-- the "Hellbringer (Loki) Prime" should not be getting an OVL value of 3 ...it only hits with the 2 ERPPCs at that range. Max Damage at Long should be 4, and not 5.***EDIT***(It *should* have an OV3 from its other weapon systems at Short and Medium Ranges; just not a different value and bonus damage at Long Range)

I wrote the rule, so I know the intent. If you think there's a better way to word it, I'm open to exceptions. But as for the intent, I'm certain on that one.

OV is a single value. It's based on medium range. If a unit has OVL, it uses the OV value as calculated by the medium range.

I apologize in advance if you felt offended - it was not my intent (nor will it ever be).

I believe the initial calculation on the MUL was done pre-errata as indicated, and that, now that we are calculating Long-Range Overheat differently and separately, the errata takes precedence and the values on the MUL should be changed. (reasons posted in my initial post upthread).

As for how *I* would reword/calculate for Modified Heat? ...Where is the best place to post this (I know this is not the thread) **edit: figured it out**

The stats are post errata. Without heat, it would do 4 damage at long range. With heat, it does 3. This it gets long range 3 and OVL. There is no OVL value. There is only an OV. It's calculated at medium range. OV is 3.

I understand what your issue is, but the way you want it to work is not how it works, and not something I (or anybody else on the MUL team) can change. OV is a single value based on medium range. The long range damage values don't affect the OV value. The decision was made that OV would be a single value, and the Hellbringer being able to get OV3 at long range with its OVL was deemed acceptable collateral damage. Your welcome to propose/discuss other opinions or house rules elsewhere in the forums, but this isn't a MUL issue.

GoldBishop: The part where you check for missing damage happens after all rounding.

Without heat: 4 damage at long range.With heat: 3 damage at long range.

There is a difference between those numbers, therefore the unit gets OVL.

See, that's just it. If I'm reading the Errata(s) right, there is No Rounding until the values are compared/attained.Therefore, I get the following.... Without Heat: Unmodified Damage = 3.3 [Do Not Round]. With Heat: Modified Damage = 2.985 [Do Not Round]. Difference = 0.314, which is < 1 [Disqualified from OVL]. Long Range Damage = UnmodifiedDamage (Round Up), or 3.3 ~ 4

What makes the most sense to me is that "rounding" comes when determining final values... . I'm really not trying to stir the pot here, guys... but there's no way my Loki Prime deals 5 damage at Long.

As Xotl said, no need to apologize. We're just trying to clarify where the issue is. It's not the Hellbringer, it's as intended. If the wording of the OVL calculation isn't clear enough, that can be worked on. (The conversion process is a pain to keep everything clear).

I don't like stepping on toes - and it seemed like I was doing that (with the defensive posts countering and counter-countering). I have full confidence we're all on the same side of trying to find balance and fairness. I'm also seeing that this discussion doesn't belong on the errata thread, respectfully....

After writing a heap (still pending), I think I might have found something... so, please... forgive me for the long post

I have NOT been Rounding the "initial Unmodified Damage"I have not seen an instruction to perform such immediate rounding (as of 11pm CST, 27 April 2016). (posting for clarity, not trying to be snide) ...the values I have calculated (and saved) are as raw numbers.

The Errata says to "use the Unmodified Damage value" to find the Heat Modified Value. I believe this is where the errors are popping up on my end.

For my Example: the Hellbringer (Prime) has a Long-Range unmodified damage value of 3.3 (2 ERPPCs = 3.0 damage, x1.1 for Targeting Computer) Its heat at this range is 33 (30 weapon, 1 AMS, 2 Movement)With only 13 DHS to dissipate the heat, I have 26 Disp, or a Long Range Heat Modifier = 26/(33-4) or 0.89655~

Currently, the Hellbringer's Unmodified Long Range Damage is "3.3". I have not rounded this value to 4 because it is not the Final Damage Value (...yet!).

The way it has been explained to me (in the previous posts), I should be Rounding the initial value (3.3), and then multiply the base un-rounded value (3.3) to find the Heat-Modified Value - then take the difference as the Overheat Value (if any):3.3 -> 4 [new Unmodified Damage]3.3 x 0.89655 = 2.95862~ (Heat Modified)4 - 2.95862 = 1.04138...in my eyes, this is what you guys are telling me. "Long Range Damage" = 3 , "OVL" = Yes, (1) (for now at Long)

I believe the "error" I'm experiencing... is in clarity of the "un-Rounded" Shouldn't we be using the same base number when applying the Heat Modifier?In this example, the difference is a staggering 0.7...

Now... if I were to go back to how I was doing it ...without rounding:3.3 x 0.89655 = 2.95862~ [Unmodified Long Range Damage]3.3 - 2.95862 = 0.341~ [Difference between the Unmodified and Modified]...Again, this value is less than 1, (per the errata) so now that the "Unmodified" value becomes the Long Range Damage value, it's time to round up (nearest whole): "Long Range Damage" = 3.3 -> 4, "OVL = No"

...Granted, I have not tested this method on other units - just the Loki so far - I believe my method provides values "closer" to the feel of their Classic/TotalWarfare counterparts. The Hellbringer Prime doesn't really overheat that much in Classic, so there's little reason (in my opinion) that it should get to deal a whooping 50 damage in AlphaStrike when it's only capable of 30; leaving it "as is" just felt wrong so I made it my mission to try and fix it. (and yes, this is an opinion. Sorry. Again.)

Unmodified in the OVL calculation is supposed to be meaning unmodified by heat. But it should go through the entire rest of the process to come up with a final damage value, then compare to the results with heat modification.So perhaps "non-heat modified final damage value" and "heat modified final damage value" should be the wording of what we are comparing to check for OVL?

...So perhaps "non-heat modified final damage value" and "heat modified final damage value" should be the wording of what we are comparing to check for OVL?

No. "non-heat final damage value", sounds too ...final... to me.

I think it should instead be "Initial Damage Value" (after all, we just finished summing damage at a particular range bracket)

However... shouldn't we wait to round until after we modify for heat?

Otherwise, we are just comparing a rounded (up) value to it's non-rounded value... which seems awfully more abstract than normal.{in my example above... the difference between 3.3 and 4 is 0.7... which is more than enough to "push" a smaller value over the threshold into Overheat territory}

final damage value is after rounding. That's the point of using that term. It's final.

Why final? Because it's the results that matters. If the hypothetical unit's long range damage is not reduced by heat (the one that it will actually use in the game), then it does not get OVL. You can't not be penalized by heat and get the OVL. The only way to know if it's penalized by its heat (at long range), is to do the entire calculation and arrive at the final values for long range, without heat modification and with heat modification. If there is a difference in what the final value would be, then you get OVL.

Hellbringer, ignoring heat, would be a 4 at long range. Hellbringer, with heat, would be a 3. So it is penalized by its heat, so it gets OVL. Intermediate steps are meaningless, only what the final damage values would be have any meaning. for example, if it were 4.0 without heat and rounding to the final damage value, and 3.1 with heat, that's a 0.9 difference. It doesn't matter, because the actual result is 4 and 4. My example, regardless of intermediate steps, does not have it's actual AS stats affected by the heat. So it can't have OVL.

EDIT: And a reminder, we're trying to figure out how to make the wording more clear on what it is (the current intent), not change it to something else (different intent). If you want to discuss your opinion on what it should be, that discussion should go elsewhere.

Starting at the 3rd paragraphTo begin, find the unit’s maximum heat output. This is the heat generated by firing all weapons, including defensive equipment such as anti-missile systems, and the special-case heat rules described further below. ’Mech units must also add the maximum heat generation possible for their most heat-intensive movement mode. This added movement heat is +2 if the unit is a BattleMech that lacks jump jets, or +1 per 2 inches of jumping Move if the unit is a BattleMech or IndustrialMech that has jump jets (to a minimum of +3 heat for such jumping units). None of the other heat-tracking units covered by these rules (including nonjumping IndustrialMechs) add heat for their movement actions. Next, determine the unit’s heat dissipation rate by adding up all of the heat modifiers shown in the Heat Dissipation Table. Note that the heat modifiers for heat sinks and coolant pods are applied for each sink or pod the unit mounts, while the heat modifiers for other special equipment like the partial wing, radical heat sink system, and RISC the emergency coolant system apply only once. For example, a unit with 10 double heat sinks and a coolant pod would have a heat dissipation rate of –21 ([10 double heat sinks x –2] –1 [coolant pod] = –21).

No Rounding indicated.

Quote from: Current errata

**Long-Range Weapons: The above heat-modification process applies to all heat-generating units for attacks made in the Short and Medium range brackets. If the unit can deliver damage at Long range (or better), a separate Long-range heat output must also be calculated. This follows the standard rules for calculating a unit's heat output, except that the only weapons included are those with a Long-range damage value. Calculate the unit's Long-range damage value without modifying for heat, and then calculate its Long-range damage value modified using the above Long-range heat output. If, after all rounding is applied, the heat-modified Long-range damage is lower than the unmodified Long-range damage by at least 1 point, then the unit receives the OVL (Overheat Long) special ability. This calculation is used solely to check if the unit qualifies for the OVL special ability. If it does qualify, the unit's actual Long-range damage value is calculated by modifying for heat using the exact same procedure and unit heat output as for the Short and Long range brackets, including weapon heat generated by weapons that cannot reach Long range. If the unit does not qualify for OVL, its Long-range damage value is unmodified by heat and the full damage value is used.**

[emphasis added for clarity]

Rounding indicated.

Which one is correct? and should it apply to ALL ranges (not just Long).

All OV and OVL checks should be using final values. As final as final there is. (I'm being silly, but I'm mocking the complexity of AS conversions and its use of "final" for various steps when its not really final). The intent is you must do all the work to a final damage value. You can't stop part way and do the comparison then.

p116, Determining Final Damage Values.This defines what a Final Damage Value is. It's after the rounding to a whole number. If you don't have a whole number, you don't have a final damage value. That's why I suggested changing the wording to final damage values, because they have a definition, and it's after rounding.so p115, starting at 3rd paragraph is talking pre-final damage values. It doesn't say anything OV. that's why it doesn't say anything about rounding. That comes later (p116).

the errata for p115 Long-Range Weapons, already specifies after all rounding, for the OVL check. For OV and OVL checks, you need to have finished the entire calcuation(s).

p116, Calculating Overheat Value"To find a unit’s Overheat Value, compare its maximum Alpha Strike damage at Medium range before and after it has been adjusted for heat using these rules."This should also mention final damage values.

And then under that for Long-Range Weapons"if this same comparison." and then this would be referencing final damage values as well.

The Galleon 200 (RL) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1180/galleon-light-tank-gal-200-rl) is listed as a Sniper despite doing exactly zero damage at Long range. And... somehow has TUR1/0*/- despite having a flat 0 (without the star) at Medium.

That depends upon what you want. Units get added in different stages. Lately I have been adding the base info when I finally get the book. Someone else has been doing the AS stats sometime later.

What I would want would be once all the units from a new source are added, say Operational Turning Points: Alshain or Record Sheets 3175: Ununabridged, a simple notice is put up on the news blurb so that we see it when we go to the front page.

That way we can go to the "sources" tab, look at the units, and make cards or point out corrections.

And if the SRM infantry can do 1 damage, shouldn't they be able to do 1 HT? Doesn't make much sense otherwise.

The Galleon 200 (RL) (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1180/galleon-light-tank-gal-200-rl) is listed as a Sniper despite doing exactly zero damage at Long range. And... somehow has TUR1/0*/- despite having a flat 0 (without the star) at Medium.

I went through a did the weapon conversions on this one. I came up with a damage profile of 1/0*/0*. I also found out that the Companion does not have an entry for the Rocket Launcher (PP) found on the Galleon in question. However, even if it does modify the damage values, none of the final values would change (they ended up being 0.88/0.48/0.24 before rounding). The TUR values should not change.

Due to the nature of the weapon system in question and the vehicle mounting them, I suggest changing the role to "Brawler", and raising the PV by 3 points to accompany the change from 0 to 0* on the Medium and Long range entries.

There was an issue when RS: Operation Klondike was entered where we couldn't set 0* as a damage value. I just went through and edited a bunch of the combat vees and lighter 'mechs from that book to add the 0*s back. PVs for those were also updated.GAL-200 (RL) was set to Scout.Griffin 2N (and 2N2) was set to Skirmisher.

That is intentional for the moment. They would be Comstar. I'm just trying to avoid break several internal processes until we are closer to having complete data in for the later eras.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Thank you for the answer but what about the Quirinius?Unlike the Celerity it has no connection to Comstar and we can readily infer it's faction availability from the text:"It was produced on Terra and found ready marketsin the former Free Worlds League territories.Many mercenaries of the early thirty-secondcentury also accept Quirinus suits in lieu ofpayment from its many users."I guess it means Republic, former FWL states and mercenaries

The Wolverine-7K (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3575/wolverine-wvr-7k) doesn't have the Draconis Combine on its availability list. The lore in TRO:3050 places this model's production at Marduk. It'd be rather strange, IMO, that the mech be built solely for export.

Phalanx D lists availability as former FWL. According to RS:3145NTNU "This support variant is immensely popularin Republic forces, and is even surfacing in Oriente infantry formations."I believe that the Republic of the Sphere should be added to the faction availability.

Spider 10K is listed as a RotS design but the ballistic reinforced and K designation make me believe it's a Kuritan design (and the design uses RE lasers that the DC began salvaging as with the Nyx 110)

There are some entries that I can't be sure but I believe might be in error:Vedette V9 is listed as Hell Horse, Wolf and Jade Falcon design but should be Lyran.The reasoning is that it's an IS tech design and that the V7 is a Lyran design (used by the LC FS RotS). The text impliesthat this design is a successor to the V7 "While swapping its bombast laser for a Gauss rifleincreased range and effectiveness,".

griffin 6S2 is listed as a LC and DC design but I think FS should be added (perhaps instead of DC)This design seems to be a modification of the Griffin 6S which was produced by the FS and LC, Unlike the DC which had produced the 1DS and later the 5K. Also thismech uses a boosted C3 slave which seems to be rather common in FS designs of this era.

Gallant 10-0 should be added to the FS. This mech uses RE lasers that were debuted by the FS in 3130 and the mech was introduced in 3130. Also the FS produces the chassis (along with the LC and the RotS). It's possible the technology has spread pretty quickly but it seems to me a bit odd

Looks like the Defiance DFN-3S has the same problem, though the DFN-3C and -3T are okay. Also, the three Defiance models have FLK0/0/1; is that correct? They can only make special FLK attacks at L range?

I can't get at my books to check right now, so that's why I'm dumping it in your lap. Enjoy!

I think that it's because FLK damage is dealt even on a standard attack if conditions are met, and subject to OV. The normal LB-10X damage of 0.6 is reduced by heat to 0.3 (24 dissipation, 52 maximum heat). It's possible that the conversion to 0* was simply missed.

the Gnome BA is listed as being produced in 3056 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1216/), yet it's advanced SRM-2 launcher isn't available till 3058, making the unit illegal...does this need an errata to the dates?

Edit: I checked the original source for the Gnome BA, Field Manual: Crusader Clans. That was back when battle armor was still being constructed by fiat, rather than a unified design system, and many suits included some piece of original equipment. Anyway, the FM says 3056 for the introduction of the Gnome with its special missile launcher. The MUL is correct, and errata should be issued for TechManual or anywhere else the Advanced SRM is listed as being introduced in 3058.

...I mean, that's my opinion from what I could find on the subject. I can't make the ruling, I'm not a MUL member or developer. :-[

Edit: I checked the original source for the Gnome BA, Field Manual: Crusader Clans. That was back when battle armor was still being constructed by fiat, rather than a unified design system, and many suits included some piece of original equipment. Anyway, the FM says 3056 for the introduction of the Gnome with its special missile launcher. The MUL is correct, and errata should be issued for TechManual or anywhere else the Advanced SRM is listed as being introduced in 3058.

...I mean, that's my opinion from what I could find on the subject. I can't make the ruling, I'm not a MUL member or developer. :-[

I'd like to make an enhancement request. I'd like to have the ability to export the results of a filtered unit search to a file in .csv format or something similar. When I'm doing force building I'm not always online. Thanks.

The Saroyan Jump Bomber's role seems wrong. http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6472/saroyan-jump-bomber-standardIt is listed as Fast Dogfighter, but given the unit's capabilities (well, lack of them), it doesn't seem fitting. Attack Fighter (despite its speed criteria being far lower) or Fire Support would be more fitting for its role as pure ground-attack aircraft.

I print all my stuff at my local office depot, which I encounter no issues, but a friend is getting his AS Force Builder printouts rejected by the store manager since it does't have a permission to reproduce for personal use labelled on it.

It seems Loki Mk II has wrong structure value for its AS cards. Both Ebon Jaguar and Hellbringer have 4 but Loki II has only 3, even though they're all same weight and use Clan XL engine, and there should not be anything else that reduces the value in Loki II.

It's on the FedCom RAT in Era Report 3052 and Era Report 3062, so it looks like availability needs to be adjusted.The fluff in the original TRO:3050 clearly indicates sales to at least one merc unit as well.

It's on the FedCom RAT in Era Report 3052 and Era Report 3062, so it looks like availability needs to be adjusted.

That might be more of an error in the RATs, unless wider distribution was deliberately intended.

Quote

The fluff in the original TRO:3050 clearly indicates sales to at least one merc unit as well.

That would be covered by the newer Common Allies/Enemies rules in Combat Manual: Mercenaries; custom units can pay points to have the Dragoons as an Ally, giving them access to Dragoons-specific machines. The MUL takes into account that handfuls of specific units may be found outside of their original factions, but unless it's a substantial number or results in new variants, then the capturing faction is not listed. Otherwise, given how widely 'Mechs end up distributed (at least in tiny numbers), listing factions at all would be pointless.

For a very specific example, look at the Capellan Death Commandos. They have the special rule that they can use any Inner Sphere 'Mech, from any faction, by choice. Does that mean that every 'Mech should have "Liao" as a listed faction?

When you hit the button to download a created force, the compiled .pdf does not include the last skill toggle you made unless it was not the last thing you did prior to hitting the download button.

In other words, if the last unit you add to your force is not a skill 4, the only way to make it show up as the skill you want on the compiled .pdf is to then add and remove a pointless extra unit before compiling.

EDIT: messing around with it further has revealed that it is ignoring ALL skill toggles after the last unit that was added or removed. If you add every unit in your list, and then go in and put in all the skills, the pdf will still print everyone at skill 4 if you don't add and remove another unit just before compiling.

Problem/Question: The BLR-1C BattleMaster is mentioned in canon but does not show up in the MUL.

Explicitly named the BLR-1C twice, it features in the novel Heir to the Dragon as Theodore Kurita's ComStar-supplied command 'Mech in chapters 52 and 65, FASA edition pp. 251-251 & 306-311= Roc edition pp. 287-289 & 346-351.It is explicitly said this 'Mech came unmodified and without downgrades, i.e. the one in the novel is a factory model in original configuration. In battle it is described to use one (implicitly single) arm-mounted Donal PPC, a Holly SRM-6 launcher, DHS, paired rear-defense lasers, and it explicitly does not have machine guns.

The BLR-2C may have been meant to be this 'Mech, but it bears a wrong alphanumerical designation (and its AMS and BAP aren't mentioned in the novel).

There is a BLR-1Gc variant with a "double cockpit" mentioned in TRO:3075 that seems to be identical to the BLR-1C as described in the novel, and Sarna posits these may be the same model.

Any new insights? I was looking for the BLR-1C's intro date for a story when I found this problem.

When you hit the button to download a created force, the compiled .pdf does not include the last skill toggle you made unless it was not the last thing you did prior to hitting the download button.

In other words, if the last unit you add to your force is not a skill 4, the only way to make it show up as the skill you want on the compiled .pdf is to then add and remove a pointless extra unit before compiling.

EDIT: messing around with it further has revealed that it is ignoring ALL skill toggles after the last unit that was added or removed. If you add every unit in your list, and then go in and put in all the skills, the pdf will still print everyone at skill 4 if you don't add and remove another unit just before compiling.

Is this with or without clicking the Save button prior to clicking Print PDF? Using the Save button before exporting the PDF seems to prevent a number of issues. (At least when I've tried it.)

We now have rules in Campaign Operations for having large spacecraft in your forces, and availability rolls that rely on cost and number of docking collars. Is there any chance we could have c-bill costs for dropships and jumpships (and dropship collars for jumpships in the notes?) prioritized for the MUL?

All variants of the Buster HaulerMech (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7220/buster-bc-xxi-haulermech) were given artwork in Record Sheets: Vehicle Annex, IndustrialMechs & Exoskeletons that is different from the Powerman HaulerMech. See attached.

I believe the Buster XXI (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3882/buster-xxi-haulermech) and Buster BC XXI (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7220/buster-bc-xxi-haulermech) refer to the same machine. Suggest deleting Buster XXI as it does not contain the reference to the RS book, nor much other information.

Also, if I do a search for units with the OMNI AS ability I get 747 'Mechs, but if I do a search adding the "OmniMech" subtype I only get 720 units. I know the Omni QuadVees don't show up under the OmniMech subtype, but that's only 9 'Mechs. I'm not sure which are the rest. And neither search returns the Ares SH Omnis.

The Highlander HGN-694 is lacking introduction date but has availability for Civil War Era.Probably should have introduction date of 3062 or 3063, considering the 'Mech is available in MechWarrior IV and other 'Mechs based on that game have similar or earlier introduction dates.

Fast Recon Cavalry Point, 67th Battlemech Cluster, Iota Galaxy (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1035/fast-recon-cavalry-point-67th-battlemech-cluster-iota-galaxy) ...shows up in most Clan searches for infantry, has the word "Recon" in it... yet... their role is listed as "Ambusher".

Based on the role assignment found in the Companion, shouldn't they labeled either Scouts or Strikers?They meet the speed, armor, and damage qualifiers (p.135-136), so I'm not sure if this is in error (needing update?) or that all Conventional Infantry units are forced to be "Ambusher" by default?

Fast Recon Cavalry Point, 67th Battlemech Cluster, Iota Galaxy (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1035/fast-recon-cavalry-point-67th-battlemech-cluster-iota-galaxy) ...shows up in most Clan searches for infantry, has the word "Recon" in it... yet... their role is listed as "Ambusher".

Based on the role assignment found in the Companion, shouldn't they labeled either Scouts or Strikers?They meet the speed, armor, and damage qualifiers (p.135-136), so I'm not sure if this is in error (needing update?) or that all Conventional Infantry units are forced to be "Ambusher" by default?

Thanks, went through a bunch of MV10" listed as Ambushers and changed them (mostly to Strikers, some Scouts).

Record sheet source for the Wolfhound IIC "Grinner" (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3570/) is listed as Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged, Clan and Star League. Should be Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged, Inner Sphere.

Thanks, went through a bunch of MV10" listed as Ambushers and changed them (mostly to Strikers, some Scouts).

Aww, you didn't upgrade the IS recon infantry (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2673/recon-infantry-recon-battalion-201st-pesht-assault-team-3rd-proserpina-hussars) even tho they have the 10" move. With a short range damage value of 0* I'm not sure how they were ever classified as ambushers in the first place ;)

Record sheet source for the Wolfhound IIC "Grinner" (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3570/) is listed as Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged, Clan and Star League. Should be Record Sheets: 3050 Upgrade Unabridged, Inner Sphere.

Aww, you didn't upgrade the IS recon infantry (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2673/recon-infantry-recon-battalion-201st-pesht-assault-team-3rd-proserpina-hussars) even tho they have the 10" move. With a short range damage value of 0* I'm not sure how they were ever classified as ambushers in the first place ;)

Ambushers just need to be slow and short range (and low armor). They don't need to do lots of damage.But yeah, the Recon infantry should be Scouts, I thought I had gotten them already..and clearly hadn't.

The cast to value type 'Int32' failed because the materialized value is null. Either the result type's generic parameter or the query must use a nullable type. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: The cast to value type 'Int32' failed because the materialized value is null. Either the result type's generic parameter or the query must use a nullable type.

Glad to see it back up! For the most part, I'm able to run the search just fine. 2 problems have occurred, so just putting it out there to see if others are getting the same results I am

(1) Random Search Fail.Sometimes, after operating a search (general, era, or faction), I can view the unit in question, click secondary links to look at other variants, go back to the previous, and close.Sometimes... when I click on an alternate variant, it spews back the same Search Error we previously suffered.

I've been unable to duplicate the error successfully. It happens at random times for random units. Sometimes it doesn't happen at all, and sometimes it happens right off the bat. I am hoping its just my IP and lame-ass upload (while the kids are streaming NetFlix on 3 different devices) and not an actual problem for the MUL. Still, if anyone else is having an error like that, I felt I should post it...

(2) Add Function Fails to add units into AlphaStrike Force Builder.Tested this multiple times, clicking the "Add Unit" function on the line with a unit found using the Search functions (generic Search, Era, or Faction)The "added" units are only added to the Standard Force list, but when I select "AS Builder" from the submenu under "Force" nothing appears in the roster.

Units may still be searched and added under the AS Force Builder normally; Skill ups and Print function remains normal (or at least, pre-hiccup normal; still spits out BV table for AlphaStrike Cards)

The Dasher II 4 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6919/dasher-ii-4) has Hardened Armor and a nominal walk speed of 7. I think there might be an issue with the conversion here, since it probably shouldn't be able to maintain full ground speed.

The Koshi 3 (http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6549/koshi-3) has MASC, but this is not reflected in its MV. MV should be 18" (14" base x 1.25 = 17.5, rounds to nearest whole number). TMM does not change, DIR does not change, adjusted PV should remain 19 (increase of 0.5 points for movement, previous total was 18.75 thanks to the 3.5 from movement and 0.25 from LTAG. Total comes up to 19.25, rounds down to 19).

Several are missing. I'm still trying to finish uploading them but a sick toddler is interrupting me. I'm hoping to finish tonight and get the images in place. The Orion 1C is being trouble. I think that record is messed up somehow. That one may take a little extra time.

Edit:Toddler with croup is asleep and the rest are entered. They should all be there except the Orion 1C. We need to see why that record is frozen.

However, according to the fluff in XTRO Gunslinger, this design was used by a mercenary in the employ of Amaris (p. 7).

The Star League factions should be removed, and replaced with whatever is appropriate. The Terran Hegemony listing should also probably be removed, since according to the MUL, the Hegemony stopped existing in 2767, and the date on the design is 2772.

Not really sure the "Amaris Empire' or whatever he was elected to is part of the MUL :)

There really wasn't a great way of dealing with an occupied Terran Hegemony. The only reason the TH got a faction eentry is to account for some of the militia units that the Star League didn't use like the Mackie and some other items that are planet specific and really not Star League like some of the civilian stuff.

There are eight introtech mechs that were formerly listed as TBD during the early republic and are now listed as Extinct AND TBD. Unsure if this was intentional or TBD the flag wasn't removed when the change was made. All nine are also flagged as Extinct in both the Late Republic and Dark Ages.

Jose fixed.Sartis: those have been fixed. I was hoping they would get suppressed once regular data showed up. I'll have to get them deleted en-masse since there are about 1600 TBD entries still kicking around the system and I don't want to have to delete them all by hand.

TRO is erroneously listed as 3025. I don't know if it is mentioned in a TRO (I see nothing in 3058U), but it isn't TRO3025.

TR3025 p120 lists "EMP Emperor" as an early mech design of same era as BNC and MCK. That's what that MUL entry was created to reference. But yeah, now that XTRO Primitives vol 4 has more of the story, it will be the new TR reference.

Yes, and lots up filling in the blanks.Available means we believe multiple regiments/clusters/etc have (or could have) multiple of that unit in its forces. We don't care how they would have gotten there (new production, old production, absorbing star league forced, refit of other models, sold by clan merchants, doesn't matter).Though unless a source specifically mentions large numbers available through salvage, we don't include salvage.

This thread is for all error reports and suggestions for the MUL online database, as found at:

Homeworld Clan and Late Succession Wars data is now available.Star League and Early Succession Wars data is now available.

In the Master Unit List, the introductory date for the CPLT-K2 variant is apparently retconned to 3033.

I find this a little disturbing, since it is a prominently noted variant, complete with record sheets in the original 1986 edition of the TRO 3025 and it's 1996 Revision. But at some point since CGL took over, it's intro has been retconned to 3033, throwing away 21 years of canon and gameplay. So I guess what I am asking, is 3033 the official introduction date for the production model of the k2, with it existing as House Kurita's standard refit before that, or is it CGLs stance now that the TRO was just plain wrong, and no PPC Cats before 3033? (I'd also note your own tables in House Kurita 3025 lists K2 as available) And if so, when were they first available as a unit?

Any official ruling on that would be greatly appreciated by this long time player.

Page 18: The Black Knight, Excalibur, Highlander, and King Crab are becoming "more common sights" in the Imperial Divisions.Page 20: A full company of Atlas were purchased by Taborri Amaris for her Amaris Regulars.Page 21: Land-Air 'Mechs are available in the Battalion size

Just to note, the individual BVs shown in the TROs are rounded. If you're calculating the BV for a squad/point/level I you take the unrounded individual BV, apply the multiplier, then round.

As for the suggestion, it can certainly be taken under consideration but no saying if or when something can come of it.

Agreed, which is why i checked my numbers against the multipliers in the Tech Manual (table on p.316). While I did not manually calculate each BA, I followed the TRO entries and then multiplied by the respective multipliers. Anything within 10 BV didn't concern me... but when the difference between the MUL and the Record Sheets is +100? I decided to test the "Wrong Multiplier" theory and felt inclined to share my conclusions.

I don't have any reason to believe the Record Sheets, TRO, or TechManual to be in error; the current values on the MUL for [respective] Clan-fielded BA are misleading (undervalued). Anyone with the Record Sheets will have the right of it; anyone using the Force Builder may have issues.

It's a technical issue I believe. The MUL is supposed to show BV for all three (4, 5 and 6). It's currently showing PVs instead of BVs on the "5 trooper squad" and "6 trooper squad" lines, and those are supposed to be BV.

I think the Firestarter availability is backward. The FS9-A (2550) was the earlier design. Shouldn't it be available to IS/Periphery General as well? The FS9-H (2703) and FS9-K also seems like they'd be "general", or in the case of the -K, Lyran exclusive. It was built by Argile Technologies and there were no Capellan Firestarter lines at the time. At least none I've seen.

TRO:3039, 'Variants'

Quote

"A companion model, the FS9-K, mounted two flamers, a large laser, and two small lasers. However, the -H model proved to be so popular that it was Argile’s dominant product after 2703."

guessing no decisions on the CPLT-K2's introductory date? I'll keep checking back about once a week, either way, but won't bug ya about it again.

Most often when you file a report and don't get an immediate response, it's because there is a LOT of discussion going on behind the scenes. I will say that I support your error report; the CPLT-K2 is one of the units I definitely did the date on, and unless I made a mistake I am certain I submitted it as being from the 3020s or earlier.

Most often when you file a report and don't get an immediate response, it's because there is a LOT of discussion going on behind the scenes. I will say that I support your error report; the CPLT-K2 is one of the units I definitely did the date on, and unless I made a mistake I am certain I submitted it as being from the 3020s or earlier.

Cool. Well, as said, not trying to be a pain. I always took 3033 as being when factory new versions of the K2 rolled off the first new CPLT line since Hollis stopped production way back when, and that the K2 in the TRO 3025 was a general refit, like the Shadow Hawk or Wolverine K. But getting an actual "canon" answer, and possibly even clarification on when it first arrived as a Mod, would definitely my day.

So again, I'll check in periodically. Just because of the way this Forum works, wasn't realyl sure if my question had been seen (as the post following could have been directed to several people) or lost in the glut, as it were.

You're right, all of the systems in non-core supplements and tech level transitions needed to be consolidated down into one spot. That's why Interstellar Operations has a whole chapter devoted to that subject! It's available for download from BattleCorps (http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3485) and DriveThruRPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/153613).

I was searching for the answer for a while, but can't find one.The issue is with the Combat Manual availability lists don't match MUL. For example CM: Mercenary lost Jagermech JM6-A as available for mercs, while MUL don't. Its just an example, as some more mechs availabilities don't match.I presume its just silly me not being able to find a simple answer, but still looking for clarifying.

You're right, all of the systems in non-core supplements and tech level transitions needed to be consolidated down into one spot. That's why Interstellar Operations has a whole chapter devoted to that subject! It's available for download from BattleCorps (http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=3485) and DriveThruRPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/153613).

If I had not already shelled out for two books already to get what I thought was the whole list then that would be ok but I did and so it's not. I don't think I should have to shell more money for something I thought I already had. There isn't anything else in IntOps that I would use.

I was searching for the answer for a while, but can't find one.The issue is with the Combat Manual availability lists don't match MUL. For example CM: Mercenary lost Jagermech JM6-A as available for mercs, while MUL don't. Its just an example, as some more mechs availabilities don't match.I presume its just silly me not being able to find a simple answer, but still looking for clarifying.

The MUL and CM tables are not meant to match exactly. They'll be really close, but they are nonetheless two completely separate availability systems, and players can use whichever one they like.

It is listed as 2890 in the MUL, but TRO:3025 (p. 150) indicates that the still living Harry S. Yoshita was one of the original designers of the Transgressor. House Liao: The Capellan Confederation (p. 50) indicates that "the first of the Confederation's new Transgressor fighters became available" in 2987. That date would be consistent with the TRO:3025 entry.

While looking up some BV/PV points earlier I noticed the Raven 4Lr is listed on its AS card as a Missile Boat. I call shenannigans on this as apart from loss of the Narc beacon it has exactly the same electronics as the 4L and its single solitary missile rack is an MML-7. this should really be a Scout like its 4L predecessor.

1. Can we please have the option to print out colored cards similar to the Lance pack cards shown here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=54970.0)? In this modern day and age, it's fairly easy to print out full-color items and doing so will make it easier to attract new/younger players to the game. After all, if we are really content with black-and-white, we wouldn't need to paint our mechs, would we? >:D

2. Another option I would like to suggest is the inclusion of numbers on the Armor and Structure. For example:A: (10) 0000000000S: (8 ) 00000000The reason I'm asking for this is because I am planning to play WITHOUT having to mark the cards. Instead, I will use counters like coins/beads/tokens to track damage and having this option would make it easier to determine how much armor/structure a mech has and how much is remaining.

3. Third suggestion would be the option to automatically convert mech movement from inches to hexes. I don't have the space in my house to play on a 6x4 table so we're playing on the mapsheets instead.

4. I tried changing the MV values from inches to hexes but realized that doing so alters the TMM. For instance, the Jenner JR7-D with a move of 14"/10"j has a TMM of 3 but changing it to 7/5j brings the TMM to 1. Can we please have the option to enter the TMM manually instead of it being automatically calculated off the MV value?

He knows that, he's saying that the TMM is calculated automatically when you click "Customize" on a given unit's card and input a speed in hexes instead of inches. Since the speed in hexes is 7/5j, the TMM is calculated as if the speed were seven inches instead, and displaying incorrectly.

A poster pointed out to me in a PM that the Clan Mechanized Infantry Mimir/Watch Counter Insurgency Point http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/622/clan-mechanized-infantry-mimirwatch-counter-insurgency-point is currently listed as Inner Sphere technology. Since the Bears have all but completely integrated with the FRR, I can see this go either way, but I wanted to pass it on just the same.

NCKestrel: Fixed, thanks for you and anon poster for pointing it out :).

Also the Hata-moto Chi, HTM-28T (Shin) variant needs to have someone look it over. (I don't have the TRO, but, from the Record Sheet, there's a few things needing corrected).http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5457/hatamoto-chi-htm-28t-shinSource: RS3050_Unabridged_ InnerSphere p.223

I noticed the Whitworth WTH-1 isn't listed as available to the Star League during the Star League era even though TRO3039 (pg 126) description implies the variant was made at the request of Star League Defense Forces:

"Originally armed with dual Harpoon-6 SRM launch-ers, Star League designers convinced the manufacturer to switch to the longer reach of the Longbow LRM 10 series after noting that..."

Of course, the text doesn't actually state that the SDLF ever used WTH-1. It mentions that Whitworths were absorbed by Great House armies but it doesn't specify any variants. But logically the Star League wouldn't have made the request unless they wanted to use WTH-1, i think, so i'd suggest WTH-1 is made available for the Star League in MUL.

Most often when you file a report and don't get an immediate response, it's because there is a LOT of discussion going on behind the scenes. I will say that I support your error report; the CPLT-K2 is one of the units I definitely did the date on, and unless I made a mistake I am certain I submitted it as being from the 3020s or earlier.

So at this point, I'm going to guess the K2 question is either deemed "correct" in date, or got buried?

Ah, OK... didn't realize I was opening such a can of worms... (looks sheepish). Always figured it was a Field Refit like the SHD-2K, etc, and probably a product of the Second Succession War, when they still had tech levels high enough for such an extreme conversion, of real late 3rd Succession War, 3020s, just before the TRO 3025, era, when the resurgence brought on the Grand Dragon, the ZEU-6T, Hatchetman, etc... but TBH, in all my years of playing, the only two "solid" dates I have ever seen associated with the K2 was that it existed in some form when the TRO 3025 was released, and that in 3033 Kurita started the first Catapult line in over 200 years, and produced the K2. At this late date, I doubt I'll be able to plead and cajole Mitch into adding it to HBS's game, but as a long time fan of the chassis in TT, I would love to know, regardless. I feel like I'm being a bad person running K2s in my 3025 campaign right now......... :(

Need to first thank two mods -- ActionButler, and Bosefius --- I didn't find this thread in a search, and ActionButler happily passed on my request on the infantry without criticism, and Bosefius did the same with a question I had on the ML variant of the Scorpion Light Tank.

Which brings me back to this, again ----- The MUL entry for the Scorpion Light Tank, ML variant has been updated from 2/2/0 damage, to 2/1/0 --- but I am curious, as it is only armed with 2 medium lasers and a machine gun for a maximum of 12 damage, how it gets the 2 at short range? If I missed something in the calculations, I would appreciate having that information. This also brings me to the Vedette Liao, which has the same 2 medium lasers and a machine gun in the turret, with 2 tons of ammo for the machine gun - has a 2/1/0 damage profile, but has a Turret of 1/1/0 listed, even though all the weapons are in that turret ... and it's exactly the same turret armament as the Scorpion Light Tank.

Does it always round up, because i have seen it round down, in other applications with 1.3 and 1.4 damage -- and that is with vehicles, where heat is not a factor.I do appreciate the response, though, as I have been doing a lot of work with conventional forces, recently

RS 3039u is showing me the Vedette Liao's machine gun as front mounted and not in the turret?

TRO3039 p.66-67 **PDF version, "Corrected Second Printing"**The weapons entry for the primary variant of the Vedette puts the MG in the turret; it doesn't mention where it should go for the others. (Intuitively, the MG is maintained throughout the other variants; only the primary weapon is weight-swapped).

It's my belief the -K2 refit originated on Al'Nair, which TRO 3025 says explicitly manufactures the original AS7-D Atlas, as part of Takashi Kurita's program to create a series of more powerful BattleMechs. It likely uses the same Lord's Thunder PPC found on the DRG-1G "Grand Dragon." Furthermore, I think the core issue is the date of Yori 'Mech Works, which I believe was operational well before 3025. The "atlas" portion in the back of the House Kurita handbook says Yori Mech Works is a joint venture between Luthien Armor Works and Alshain Weaponry and that it was damaged in 3010 but is "recently back to production." Yori is also known to have later produced both the advanced -K and-K2 versions of the Atlas.A conservative date for the -K2 is 3024 but I think there is sufficient indirect evidence to date it to 3004.

Thanks to the MUL team for all their work, the MUL is a great resource to have available. Is there any way that fans can help volunteer to contribute to the MUL effort?

Specifically I have a question about the status of the Dark Age unit availabilities. They are listed in "Draft" status - is there any way to help advance its status? There is a statement at the top of the this thread that "This database does not include Dark Age availabilities for units published prior to TR 3085". Should be interpreted as a canonical limitation ("The likelihood of encountering a 100 year old Daishi on the battlefield in 3150 is about the same as encountering a century-old WW1 Landship in a present-day conflict")? Or it is more to limit the scope of work involved providing availability for these eras?

My guess would be mostly the latter (though with a bit of the former) -- this question came up while putting together a Dark Age unit and noticing that Union dropships are on some RATs in 3145, but not tagged as available in the MUL.

Scope of work. I wish it was something simple like this TRO isn't done because some are partially done. We have been working on data for TRO 3055 and later. I have 3039 and 3050 (clans are already done) on the docket next but it is a matter of carving out the time to compile and review.

For a quick answer if there is data available for a unit, it should give something for faction data for all eras after introduction with the exception of homeworld clan mechs. Compare these two examples:http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2495/phoenix-hawk-pxh-1khttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4488/legacy-lgc-01

The legacy has full data while the phoenix hawk only has data covering Star League through Early Republic.

As of right now, Dark Age and Late Republic eras only have about 57% coverage. Early Republic era has about 82%. Clan Invasion to Jihad eras have over 99% coverage.

If I may step in for a moment, as a former contributor to the MUL, I feel I should add that RATs should not be taken as "canon." They are a game aid meant to help players quickly create thematic forces; no more, no less.

Just curious as I have been unable to find any details on when Lycomb-Davion IntroTech started building Awesomes on New Avalon.

Am assuming it's one of the many retcons I missed over the years, as when I first played the game only Technicron produced the AWS series. If there is a better resource for finding out this info, please can somebody direct me to it?

Just curious as I have been unable to find any details on when Lycomb-Davion IntroTech started building Awesomes on New Avalon.

Am assuming it's one of the many retcons I missed over the years, as when I first played the game only Technicron produced the AWS series. If there is a better resource for finding out this info, please can somebody direct me to it?

Let's back up a sec, what makes you think Lycomb-Davion builds Awesomes on New Avalon? The MUL doesn't have production information, only availability (and not system specific).

possible lack of info, only world I found lycomb davion listed was for New Avalon. Excuse me if I missed something. That's kind of the point of posting and asking here, yes? If incorrect, cool, kindly source the correct info. But it's rather secondary to the main point, being when lycomb davion started producing AWS on whatever planet.

Field Report 2765: AFFS is the only source implying that Davion made any Awesomes. It is implied on Demeter. The factories were destroyed in the 1st SW. That is the last we hear about them making Awesomes.

If I may step in for a moment, as a former contributor to the MUL, I feel I should add that RATs should not be taken as "canon." They are a game aid meant to help players quickly create thematic forces; no more, no less.

Except that many units have no sources, outside of RATs, for their faction availability. Yet they are listed as available for those factions in the MUL. CHEVALIERIs there a published source stating that the Chevalier Light Tank was sold to every state during the Star League era? It's under "General" for all factions during the 2750 era on the MUL.

MERCURY MCY-99Mercury MCY-99. TRO:2750, p. 16 states that "none of these 'Mechs were allowed outside of the direct control of the Regular Army." Yet it appears on the RATs for CCAF and LCAF and, of course, in their MUL availability.

WARHAMMER WHM-6RbThis variant is found only on the RATs in the 2765 series (during the Star League) and is replaced by the WHM-6Rk on the DC table. This corresponds directly with what's in the MUL data. FR:2750 states that these "Royals" also represent field upgrades to existing units. So while the Combine and Periphery states are easily capable of upgrading their WHM-6R with double heat sinks and CASE, the MUL doesn't have them as available for these factions. The only place they appear (or do not appear) is in the 2765 RATs.

GALAHAD GLH-1DAs per Herb, this was a discontinued design produced by the Hegemony, just prior to the Star League's existence. (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=38360.msg887231#msg887231 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=38360.msg887231#msg887231)) It appears in the MUL as available to CCAF, LCAF, AFFS and in their corresponding RATs.

It seems as if the RATs were the initial source for the MUL data and, probably, the reason why there are so many oddities. It's hard to not come to that conclusion.

I'm not sure what your points are here, because you show cases where the RATs and MUL don't agree, and cases where there may be errors with both. My point is that sometimes units appear on RATs just to fill them out, because despite the thousands of units published, there are still gaps. (For example, the Chevalier Light Tank: maybe nobody but the SLDF really used that exact model, but the other states used local designs with the same stats.) Beyond that, mistakes also happen. Sometimes they're corrected through errata, and sometimes they're allowed to stay because their actual impact is minor.

If you feel you have found a mistake, the proper procedure is to report it as errata for the appropriate product. Do note that certain products are considered obsolete and will neither have errata threads nor be corrected. If any newer source disagrees with them, then the older product is usually considered to have been retconned unless the newer book is outright incorrect. TR2750, as one of the earliest Technical Readouts, certainly falls under this guideline. If you are uncertain what fix should be made, then before posting in the errata thread, post a question in either Ask the Writers or Ask the Lead Developers, but understand that it will take some time to get an answer, and that the answer you receive might not be what you wanted.

If you feel that the Master Unit List has an error, then this is the proper thread to post in. A unit's appearance on a RAT can be a point of evidence, but it might not be enough for inclusion on the MUL. On the other hand, a unit not appearing on a RAT is not a point of evidence in either direction. On the gripping hand, there may be internal discussion that places or removes a unit from the MUL without corroborating evidence in print.

BattleTech is a hugely detailed and sprawling universe, covering about six centuries "on-screen" over a couple hundred sourcebooks and novels. No one person can remember it all. Mistakes happen, and it is very much appreciated when the fanbase brings them to the developers' attention, so they can be fixed. All that's asked in return is patience on answers, and a willingness to accept that reports might not be acted upon or result in changes that the reporter might not personally agree with. "Hoarding" mistakes - that is, not reporting them because they're in your favor - or rejecting direct developer input is generally considered poor form, and is just going to prolong arguments.

Whoof. Sorry for the long post, and my apologies if I stepped on any toes, but I worked hard to develop the current errata system at CGL, and I know how hard everyone works behind the scenes, especially the MUL guys.

Long story made short, if you feel there is an error in the MUL, report it and whatever sources you have for believing it's an error. RAT, technical readout, scenario, novel, whatever. There are few rules, many guidelines, and mostly headaches from the resulting conflicts.

TRO: 3025 reports the Zeus was designed in 2407 with Defiance Industries beginning production in 2411.

TRO: 3039 does a massive about face on this and states the Zeus didn't began production until after the fall of the Star League, arriving just in time for the beginning of the First Succession War. The MUL also uses 2787 as the introduction date with the familiar -6S finally arriving 2898.

This would infer that Defiance Industries, the sole producer of the Zeus, maintained the ability to produce the advanced weapons of the Star League until almost 2900, including extended range energy weapons, Ultra autocannons, the Artemis IV FCS, Ferro-Fibrous armor and most importantly, Double Heat Sinks.

The Tech Manual reports extended range lasers were extinct as of 2950, Ultra autocannons in 2915​, DHS in 2865, ​the ER PPC as of 2860, Artemis IV disappears in 2855, and Ferro-Fibrous armor in 2810.

How was Defiance Industries making the -5S and 5T ​Zeus​ using reportedly "extinct" technology up until 2898? Something seems very, very wrong here. Please review and clarify.

Or Defiance didn't make any Zeus for several decades. Or Defiance made an as of yet undescribed variant for that time. There's nothing on the MUL that says when production stopped, only when it first started. If Defiance couldn't produce the 5S and 5T for a time, then they weren't.

Field Report 2765: AFFS is the only source implying that Davion made any Awesomes. It is implied on Demeter. The factories were destroyed in the 1st SW. That is the last we hear about them making Awesomes.

TRO: 3025 reports the Zeus was designed in 2407 with Defiance Industries beginning production in 2411.

TRO: 3039 does a massive about face on this and states the Zeus didn't began production until after the fall of the Star League, arriving just in time for the beginning of the First Succession War. The MUL also uses 2787 as the introduction date with the familiar -6S finally arriving 2898.

This would infer that Defiance Industries, the sole producer of the Zeus, maintained the ability to produce the advanced weapons of the Star League until almost 2900, including extended range energy weapons, Ultra autocannons, the Artemis IV FCS, Ferro-Fibrous armor and most importantly, Double Heat Sinks.

The Tech Manual reports extended range lasers were extinct as of 2950, Ultra autocannons in 2915​, DHS in 2865, ​the ER PPC as of 2860, Artemis IV disappears in 2855, and Ferro-Fibrous armor in 2810.

How was Defiance Industries making the -5S and 5T ​Zeus​ using reportedly "extinct" technology up until 2898? Something seems very, very wrong here. Please review and clarify.

Or they were using existing stockpiles set aside for their Flagship, until they ran out? What we see in modern military ggear (admittedly usually with advancements, not downgrades) is a steady stream of modifications that get little or no official "designations" and then at various times, usually with a major change, a new model. (M1A1 Abrams has had a ton of changes made that didn't really get noted by it's designation)

Out of Ferro Fibrous? Switch the Line to standard. Out of Artemis FCS (or more likely, the warheads)? Remove it, tuck another SHS in it's place. Can't make an ER LLaser? Use a std. Few of those changes, individually would call for a new designation. I would say the DHS to SHS downgrade would be the most likely "change" point, from where the official 6S would step in.

Of course, all of that is counter to the original lore, which went from PPC packing prototypes to production 6S, with no 5T or 5S in between. But hey...why bother keeping continuity when we can retcon, instead! (yes the sheer amount of unneeded retcons and variants added has me a bit salty)

"Hoarding" mistakes - that is, not reporting them because they're in your favor - or rejecting direct developer input is generally considered poor form, and is just going to prolong arguments.

As I've no idea from where this information is taken, I cannot say what is/is not a mistake. There is no canon publication for many of them, outside of RATs. Which means that the data is either taken directly from a RAT, or from the developers'/authors' notes, or some other source which remains unpublished. Which is why I have not posted anything further. I'm not "hoarding" anything. Without more information on the MUL's sources, or feedback on the things I have posted, I cannot fact-check or post (possible) errors.

My follow-up question would then be, "what are the sources being used to determine availability?" Or, just narrowing it down for illustrative purposes; "what was the source of the Warhammer WHM-6Rb availability?" The answer to that would go a long way in helping me/others fact-check things and submit potential errors. :) If we don't know what sources are valid, how can we check them?

This is for posting feedback about the MUL to the MUL team. It's for a conversation between the MUL team and players, not players arguing with other players. There's an entire forum outside of MUL feedback thread for that.

ColBosch, you're not on the MUL team any more. I understand you had insight, but arguing with players is not something we want or need it.

TigerShark, 99% of the MUL information had to be made up. There's often not a source, other than the MUL itself. Feel free to point out if you think we missed a source that's contradictory, and ignore ColBosch. (And we'll get to your previous posts at some point, I'm just busy over the winter holidays so don't have the time to do the research yet that it deserves).

TRO3039 p.66-67 **PDF version, "Corrected Second Printing"**The weapons entry for the primary variant of the Vedette puts the MG in the turret; it doesn't mention where it should go for the others. (Intuitively, the MG is maintained throughout the other variants; only the primary weapon is weight-swapped).

I noticed the Whitworth WTH-1 isn't listed as available to the Star League during the Star League era even though TRO3039 (pg 126) description implies the variant was made at the request of Star League Defense Forces:

Star League Regular faction availability added for Star League era.Thanks.

Lynx LNX-9QThis unit has the availability of "Lyran Commonwealth" during the Star League era. Their manufacturer (Blue Shot Weapons of Solaris VII), was under the control of the Free Worlds League at the time. (2765:FWLM, page 25) TRO:3058U gives the impression that Solaris was the only site for the LNX-9Q and that the chassis was not made on Loxley.

Hellcat II hasn't been reviewed at all for LSW era faction data. I don't think any of that TRO has to be honest. We are currently trying to finished up the post jihad eras before finishing up the LSW. We also need clan data to go with ESW and LSW. I think that era is about 25% done.

I suspect the dig king mod has a wrong date. ESW seems to be when the MODs started appearing in general.

There is an entry for the Carbine -1. It appears to have been in the original set of data from when the MUL was set up. A search for Carbine brings it up for me.

I was digging around the Arctic Wolf II and noticed that it was only available to Wolves in Exile and Kell Hounds through three eras. It does appear in the Sea Foxes RAT table in FM3145 (pg 219.) I know RATs are the end-all-be-all on what a faction can field, but if it appears in a RAT, would a faction have enough of them to make the MUL as well?

I searched to see if this had come up with this unit but couldn't find anything. Thanks!

I was digging around the Arctic Wolf II and noticed that it was only available to Wolves in Exile and Kell Hounds through three eras. It does appear in the Sea Foxes RAT table in FM3145 (pg 219.) I know RATs are the end-all-be-all on what a faction can field, but if it appears in a RAT, would a faction have enough of them to make the MUL as well?

I searched to see if this had come up with this unit but couldn't find anything. Thanks!

Added Lyrans and Clan Sea Fox for Late Republic and Dark Ages availabilities.

it has only one weapon, a light PPC with capacitor, and 10 DHS (according to RS3085 PP, and i checked the errata thread whether it are DHS or SHS).even with single HS it could not overheat (11 heat build-up vs. 10 heat dissipation), so it should be corrected to OV 0 and PV 13 (it loses one point in the calculation for OV value).

(and btw, it would be impossible, even with AS conversion up-rounding all weapon damage, to deal 2 damage points with only a light PPC w/ capacitor. ;) )

I could easily be missing something here, but I was wondering about the Faction Availability of the Rifleman IIC 8 and 5;

Of the IIC 8 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2717/rifleman-iic-8 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2717/rifleman-iic-8)) TRO3085 says: "This variant appeared in forces from all three Clans who soiled New Earth with their presence ... Though offered to all Inner Sphere factions, prior to 3080 the IIC 8 only appeared with the Sharks, Wolves, Falcons, Bears and AFFS. Since then, the DCMS and Duchy of Oriente have both aquired the design in small numbers."

This doesn't seem to agree with what's in the MUL for the Rifleman IIC 8.

Of the Rifleman IIC 5 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2714/rifleman-iic-5 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2714/rifleman-iic-5)), TRO3085 continues:"In a futile attempt to confuse us, the putrid Falcons deployed a second variant of the Rifleman IIC ... The second variant identified by the Blakists is the IIC 5."

This is presumably the Rifleman IIC refit the Jade Falcons have coming out of Red Devil Industries on Pandora, but as per the MUL, it is not available to the Falcons but is available to a host of factions that the Falcons generally wouldn't trade with (trade of the merchant or warrior caste variety). I think the IIC 5 was mistakenly thought to have come from the Diamond Shark line on Twycross in the MUL.

The MUL restricts availability to the Rasalhague Dominion. According to its source material:

Quote from: TRO:3145 The Clans

Despite its preliminary stigma as beingof Dominion manufacture, the suit went on tosee service in the Draconis Combine with ISFagents and the occasional Civilian GuidanceCorps emergency response team.

The source goes on to give an example of a notable ISF operation making use of the suits, and one of the two notable pilots is a Combine agent.

According to the fluff, even though there's no evidence of its use by the actual military, the paramilitaries of the Combine seem to make notable use of suit, even if it may or may not be widespread use by those paramilitaries. Should Draconis Combine availability be added?

"HT2/2/2" should not be available to this variant, as Clan Plasma Cannons are not present on the equipment list in the TRO.All other stats appear accurate (Armor, Movement, Damage, and applicable Specials).

The omission of the HT special should reduce the OFV by 2.5 (I calculated the total PV to be 42.25, which rounds normally [down] to 42).

Upon consorting with the Record Sheets (3085_Cutting Edge p.229-233) the "C" configuration has replaced the "Prime" configuration found in the TRO. Also, the allocation of some of the "fixed" Critical Slots do not conform to the TRO. Information was made known in the individual Errata thread (3085) but the info is dated, and does not read like any adjustments were made [to either the TRO or Record Sheets].

I have a proposed "fix" for the Record Sheets, but am holding to see what transpires in the other errata threads.

It changed because when the PV system was first written jumping was a mandatory movement mode (i.e. it repalced ground movement completely) and only offered a +1 attack penalty. In the process of Alpha Strike's development, jumping became an option but also the attack penalty rose to +2. At that point I felt it was unfair for a guy to be charged as if they were jumping all the time when making attacks, because not only did they not have to, they probably weren't if they wanted to hit something.

Infantry still pay because they don't get the attack penalty when jumping.

It changed because when the PV system was first written jumping was a mandatory movement mode (i.e. it replaced ground movement completely) and only offered a +1 attack penalty.

Small correction, jumping in the 1st printing had no attacker penalty. They got a +1 target modifier for being jump capable (which led to errata clarifying that the unit had to actually use jump movement to get the +1 for jumping), but there was no penalty to attacks by a jumping unit. The ASC/2nd printing jumped (oops, sorry for the pun) directly to a +2 attacker modifier for jumping.

So the original PV was based on a "free" +1 target movement modifier with no penalty. It was clearly beneficial. A +2 to attacks penalty to get a +1 when targeted is much less clearly beneficial.

Without meaning to discuss the matter, I'm concerned that the ability to jump was always held a distinctive tactical value over units incapable of jumping, (which is why I assumed it was in the Defense Factor calculations to begin with).

Is there some other way to pay for jump capability?

Jumping while suffering Overheat, for instance. Those with heat levels 1-3 can still jump their full [jump] movement, while units that lack jump capability must hobble/standstill until they cool off [in this case, purely a defensive tactic]

And what about units equipped with Partial Wings and Improved Jump Jets whose [jump] movement often expands into the next bracket? (6"/10"j goes from +1 to +3 total TMM when jumping). The movement modifiers usually offset the attack penalty (+2 TMM,+2 TN) while controlling/threatening more ground area [both offensive and defensive tactical].

TRO 3039 page 58 states the Machine Gun variant of the Goblin is a "rare Kurita variant". The MUL lists no Draconis Combine availability for this variant after the Early Succession War era (where it's IS General, Mercenary, and Periphery General): http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1224/goblin-medium-tank-mg

Curiously, the SRM variant of the Goblin is listed with exclusive Draconis Combine (and Rasalhague, during its existence) availability after the Early Succession War era: http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1225/goblin-medium-tank-srm

It appears the two variants were confused at some point with regard to their availability. Recommend adding Draconis Combine/Rasalhague availability to the MG variant, and wider availability to the SRM variant (which isn't characterized as a "Kurita" variant). The Combine already has access to the base and LRM variants.

are the Trooper TP-1R from Primitives Vol 5 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7407/trooper-tp-1r) and the Trooper TRP-1 metioned in the Flea writeup in TRO 3039 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/5301/trooper-trp-1) discrete designs, or does the new TP-1R make the TRP-1 a redudant entry?

Something I just noticed (& brought up in my post http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56239.0 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56239.0)). I'm not 100% sure about the Alpha Strike calculations for the CRD-2R.

It's possible that it's just because of a carryover from the BattleForce calculations (at least from what Solaris Skunk Werks says should be the BattleForce figures), or perhaps I'm just reading Alpha Strike Companion wrong, but I think the Attack Values and Overheat value might be off.

From what I can tell from the tables, Base damage (before adjusting for heat) should be:

Medium: 5.0 x 20 / 22 = 4.545454, which rounds up to 5 (this does not match the Alpha Strike Card, which lists a "4" instead)

Long: Since only the LRMs have an Attack Value at this range, & the maximum heat (10 + 2 = 12) is less than the heat dissipation, there's no adjustment for heat at this range. "Modified" damage = Base Damage = 2.4, which rounds up to 3 (again, this does not match the Alpha Strike card, which lists "2").

Since the "Modified" and "Base" damage for Medium Range are now the same (5), OV is now 0 (also does not match the "1" listed on the Alpha Strike card).

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack? I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack? I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

Perhaps this has been addressed, but the MUL lists the BJ3 with a 3042 introductory date, but the mech itself was first debuted in the Fourth Succession War Battlepack? I have not been able to obtain a copy of this Battlepack to confirm, though.

Actually, it first debuted in Objective Raids (page 149) as an evolution of the BJ-2.

Actually, it first debuted in Objective Raids (page 149) as an evolution of the BJ-2.

Which makes sense from a nomenclature standpoint.. but since the BJ2 was produced in 3052, and the BJ3 was in various guises produced during the 4th Succession War and full production apparently in 3042... the designation doesn't really make sense... but what can you do?

thank you! Are there record sheets anywhere? This is literally the only reference I have ever seen to a 3X.. the rest just list the BJ3 as being the first mech to enter production with DHS, apparently the corrosive ones, originally.

i presume the BJ-3X is referenced obliquely in this paragraph from TRO:3039... though the intro date of 3029 on the MUL muddles things.

Quote from: TRO: 3039 pg. 128

In the 3030s, the St. Ives Compact experimented withrecovered technology on some of their Blackjacks. One prototypethat showed great promise replace the autocannonand one heat sink with a pair of Ceres Arms Smasher PPCs.Three of the remaining heat sinks were replaced with experimental“freezer” double efficiency units.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3831/blackjack-bj-3xThe BJ-3 with all double heat sinks could not have existed that early. So we created a BJ-3X that was a step toward the 3. It has not received a record sheet yet.

The availability trajectory makes sense if you imagine the 3050 omnis as battle salvage. By the Jihad everyone has accumulated a good bit of Clan salvage thanks to Revival, Bulldog, and Serpent. But chronic borderjumping raids don't maintain that windall, and availability peters back out for the IS as time advances.

and again the KARHU.the discussion and correction of the KARHU C (now PV 40) on the previous page made me wonder why the KARHU A costs 44 points.compared to the C it lacks the melee weapon but adds 1 damage point at long range and an IF1. this should not be a 4 point difference.

The Karhu A is jump-capable. Using the current rules, that gives it a further +1 defence mod, for a 1.3 multiplier, not a 1.2.

The PV revision would remove that, but it's not finalized as of yet and so hasn't been implemented in the MUL.

i dont think so.according to errata v1.1 for ASC the additional +1 is for jump-capable infantry, so the multiplier of 1.2 should be correct.see also GoldBishops math and Nckestrels answer/correction to it:

...Since the Karhu is *not* Infantry, only its best movement is used to determine the multiplier (10", or +2). I did not go back and correct my calculations; if I mislead you, please forgive me - mine are not official calculations.

Do note that it's my understanding that Jump-capable units still pay for Jump movement in the Movement Factor (MF)... but that's it. (I sympathize if you feel this value is under-costed to jump-capable 'mechs, but this is not the thread to voice such a complaint).

Another note: the whole of the MUL is still in need of this (v1.1) update; many of the values, while unchecked, will be calculated slightly off (as of 9-Feb-2017, units are more expensive by about 1-2 PV depending on the unit). One could assume that once the Heat Modification section is finalized, we'll see the "update" ripple through the MUL. (I'm not privy to their time tables, so we can only guess).

**EDIT** I can confirm the reduced cost to the Karhu "A" (44 to 42) "B" (47 to 45) and G (48 to 46)... but again, these should come after the v.1.1 screens units off the MUL en masse. (Mine are still unofficial calculations; I'm just a friendly calculating spectator)

I did check the standard weapons as well. Rifle, LRM, SRM, and Flamer have all been changed, meaning any units (nearly all of them) that use those weapons are now incorrect in both damage output and BV in the entire MUL.

TI-1A Titan has a MUL date of 2787.TRO: 3075 pg. 94 gives a prototype date of 2765 and references General Aleksandr Kerensky.

FFL-4A Firefly has a MUL date of 2801 and even the oldest Firefly mode, the FFL-2SLE, has a date of 2790Operation Klondike pg. 164 clearly states the Firefly was a mainstay of the SLDF and introduced in the "27th century."

This one seems tied into the introduction of the snub-nosed PPC, which may require errata in its own right. However, given the data we have:

Falcon FLC-4NbThe current fluff states that the Falcon was put into production with the remaining factories of the Rim Worlds Republic, namely Roe Weapon Systems of Apollo. This would have to have been done during the SLDF occupation. This puts the date of the FLC-4Nb no earlier than 2770 (conquest of Apollo) and no later than 2772, when Kerensky's troops departed the Republic. (LoT, pp 109-110) My suggested date would be 2770, since it states these were "rushed into production." But in reality, it could have been any time up to the launch of ALMARIC.

This would mean that an FLC-4N production facility existed on Apollo prior to this date. Unless the unlikely scenario exists where General Kerensky has a Falcon factory built from scratch out of a Roe Weapons Systems aerospace plant. So the FLC-4N should probably be added to the RWR Home Guard availability. Also, seems like there was some kind of upgrade done to the plant, if it existed. Seems a little strange that an Endo Steel frame would be readily available for a rushed unit. Feels like there should be another unit here preceding the -4Nb, like the FLC-4Nb-PP2 config. (I know that's not canon--just my impression from the timeline and the logical chain of events).

Phoenix Hawk PXH-1cGoing off of the FLC-4Nb fluff, the PXH-1c is said to come first: "Equipped with the prototype Snub-Nosed PPC first deployed inthe PHX-1c Phoenix Hawk.." (Op:Klondike, p. 163) This suggests that the Phoenix Hawk's upgrade came first. Given that Kerensky's Orion custom came in at 2754, this should be much earlier than 2784, possibly just inserting the Kerensky date of 2754.

Firestarter FS9-KTHE MUL has this mech extinct since the 1st SW (and then available to only Liao) yet the description seems to indicate it was in production by the Lyrans but not as prolific as the base model and would certainly be more numerous than the 'Mirage'.

The only data we were able to find on the FS9-K was that it was not produced for long in the LC; it was overshadowed by the FS9-H; and the only reference to it at all was in the Liao Field Report. We assumed that some were sold to all of the great houses but that they all turned them down with the run being dumped off on Liao for one reason or another.

thanks cavingjan; it certainly sounds as though there is limited information. Could I suggest that its not unlike the Whitworth and therefore a lot of these machines went into the open market and given it had more than the one year of production versus the 'Mirage' it would be more common and you could have quite a few in private hands. Given the availability of parts it would be safe to assume these survived. I would also like to think that it's not unlike the Blackjack in that mech warriors figured out over time that the bad reputation was unjustified???

Why? The EXT-4D came out in 2620. 10 years later, the stealth version (EXT-4C) came out. The -4D has no restricted technologies whatsoever. The XLE and AMS were pieces of equipment on units which were sold as SLDF surplus to Member States (and the Periphery). It doesn't even have a Guardian ECM Suite or Active Probe.

Seems to me like the EXT-4D was the "consumer-grade" model, sold off to prospective buyers, while the EXT-4C and SPR-4F were kept as Royal-exclusive, fulfilling the mission of "seek-and-destroy". That would explain its appearance in Great House RATs and the sheer numbers surviving into the early Succession Wars. Had it been SLDF / HAF exclusive, most (if not all) of the advanced units (i.e: Devastator, Nightstar, Spector, etc.) would have been destroyed during the drive for Terra or evacuated on the Exodus. The standard models (EXT-4D) would probably be left behind; and they were.

Trooper (no exact designation) is mentioned in TRO 3039 (on p. 242) as an original name for a 'Mech, that later become known as Flea. The MUL lists Trooper TRP-1 as a 'Mech from TRO 3039, but lists no official record sheet for it. There is also Trooper TRP-1R in the MUL from XTRO Primitives V. Both TRP-1 and TRP-1R have the same introduction date (2475).

I don't own XTRO Primitives V, so I can't be 100% certain, but I suspect, that TRP-1 and TRP-1R are supposed to be the same 'Mech variant (XTRO Primitives V provides official stats for the 'Mech mentioned in TRO 3039) in which case one of the MUL entries needs to be removed.

Recommendation - remove the Trooper with designation not matching the XTRO (Trooper TRP-1 most likely) from the MUL, unless Trooper TRP-1 and Trooper TP-1R are indeed meant to be two different models.

EDIT: Strange thing... When I look for the Trooper in MUL by name, the TRP-1 variant is not listed, but when I list all TRO 3039 units by source - it is there. A leftover after removal somehow done incorrectly, perhaps?

The Trooper TRP-1 and Trooper TP-1R situation (described two posts above) seems to be mostly resolved, but they still link to each other as "Other Models". Other than that I must say I'm pleasantly surprised, that MUL maintainers react so quickly to errata reports. Good job guys.

Edit: Huh? I could swear, that when I wrote this post the TRP-1 was removed from the list of units in TRO 3039, but it appears to be back there again.

Issue: It has a C3 slave but lacks the C3S and MQ1 specials. I did not compute PV to see if it already reflects the C3. I suspect it does not, though.

I did some fiddling with a builder program, and adding the C3Slave would put the Dragon -5Nr overweight by 1 ton.However, it looks like the Record Sheet (RS3085_ONN p.88) is in error, as the TRO entry upgrade for the Dragon (3085, p.190) does not mention an Artemis upgrade to the LRMs.

Dropping Artemis for the C3 Slave would make up for that that 1-ton difference. (record sheet needs the errata).

Page 10 of the Field Report 2765 Periphery states that "Beginning in 2753, MMM also began production of the MAD-1R Marauder under a contract with the Free Worlds League that allows the MAF to receive twenty-five percent of each production runs. This has added hundreds of Marauders to the otherwise underweight MAF BattleMech forces."

So under the Star League era, the Magistracy of Canopus should be added to the list of users, and I'd suggest that since "hundreds" existed in the MAF, that even with the loses of the Periphery Uprising, it should still be around in noticeable numbers for part of the First Succession War. Thus it should be listed as available to the MoC during the First Succession War as well (the 1st Succession War RAT backs this up, though that's not the greatest source, I know).

Just checking in to rattle the cage around the CPLT-K2 Catapult intro date question/debate, figuring it has been some time, and hoping it was not lost in the shuffle. It shan't be appearing in HBS's upcoming Battletech game, regardless, but for personal sanity, am hoping to see it restored to it's proper pre 3025 introduction date.

What is the status of things like the Roughneck from MWO? We keep hearing Randall Bills has declared them canon, was curious if that considered so, or only after/if they are actually added to a "paper" CGL supplement? Also how this affects the unique "hero" versions of mechs?

Page 10 of the Field Report 2765 Periphery states that "Beginning in 2753, MMM also began production of the MAD-1R Marauder under a contract with the Free Worlds League that allows the MAF to receive twenty-five percent of each production runs. This has added hundreds of Marauders to the otherwise underweight MAF BattleMech forces."

So under the Star League era, the Magistracy of Canopus should be added to the list of users, and I'd suggest that since "hundreds" existed in the MAF, that even with the loses of the Periphery Uprising, it should still be around in noticeable numbers for part of the First Succession War. Thus it should be listed as available to the MoC during the First Succession War as well (the 1st Succession War RAT backs this up, though that's not the greatest source, I know).

TI-1A Titan has a MUL date of 2787.TRO: 3075 pg. 94 gives a prototype date of 2765 and references General Aleksandr Kerensky.

Updated, thanks.

Quote

FFL-4A Firefly has a MUL date of 2801 and even the oldest Firefly mode, the FFL-2SLE, has a date of 2790Operation Klondike pg. 164 clearly states the Firefly was a mainstay of the SLDF and introduced in the "27th century."

TRO 3039 page 58 states the Machine Gun variant of the Goblin is a "rare Kurita variant". The MUL lists no Draconis Combine availability for this variant after the Early Succession War era (where it's IS General, Mercenary, and Periphery General): http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1224/goblin-medium-tank-mg

Curiously, the SRM variant of the Goblin is listed with exclusive Draconis Combine (and Rasalhague, during its existence) availability after the Early Succession War era: http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1225/goblin-medium-tank-srm

It appears the two variants were confused at some point with regard to their availability. Recommend adding Draconis Combine/Rasalhague availability to the MG variant, and wider availability to the SRM variant (which isn't characterized as a "Kurita" variant). The Combine already has access to the base and LRM variants.

The MUL restricts availability to the Rasalhague Dominion. According to its source material:

The source goes on to give an example of a notable ISF operation making use of the suits, and one of the two notable pilots is a Combine agent.

According to the fluff, even though there's no evidence of its use by the actual military, the paramilitaries of the Combine seem to make notable use of suit, even if it may or may not be widespread use by those paramilitaries. Should Draconis Combine availability be added?

I could easily be missing something here, but I was wondering about the Faction Availability of the Rifleman IIC 8 and 5;

Of the IIC 8 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2717/rifleman-iic-8 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2717/rifleman-iic-8)) TRO3085 says: "This variant appeared in forces from all three Clans who soiled New Earth with their presence ... Though offered to all Inner Sphere factions, prior to 3080 the IIC 8 only appeared with the Sharks, Wolves, Falcons, Bears and AFFS. Since then, the DCMS and Duchy of Oriente have both aquired the design in small numbers."

This doesn't seem to agree with what's in the MUL for the Rifleman IIC 8.

correct, adjusted.

Quote

Of the Rifleman IIC 5 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2714/rifleman-iic-5 (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/2714/rifleman-iic-5)), TRO3085 continues:"In a futile attempt to confuse us, the putrid Falcons deployed a second variant of the Rifleman IIC ... The second variant identified by the Blakists is the IIC 5."

This is presumably the Rifleman IIC refit the Jade Falcons have coming out of Red Devil Industries on Pandora, but as per the MUL, it is not available to the Falcons but is available to a host of factions that the Falcons generally wouldn't trade with (trade of the merchant or warrior caste variety). I think the IIC 5 was mistakenly thought to have come from the Diamond Shark line on Twycross in the MUL.

http://www.battlecorps.com/BC2/news.html?article=258 specifically states the IIC 5 is Diamond Shark. But you are correct that TR3085 makes it clear the Falcons used it as well, and our production notes have both CJF and CDS making it. Adding CJF.

it has only one weapon, a light PPC with capacitor, and 10 DHS (according to RS3085 PP, and i checked the errata thread whether it are DHS or SHS).even with single HS it could not overheat (11 heat build-up vs. 10 heat dissipation), so it should be corrected to OV 0 and PV 13 (it loses one point in the calculation for OV value).

(and btw, it would be impossible, even with AS conversion up-rounding all weapon damage, to deal 2 damage points with only a light PPC w/ capacitor. ;) )

Do you add the cost to the base unit with a note to reduce the cost if you aren't playing with the optional quirks rules or do you just add a note with the additional costs if you are playing with those additional quirk rules. There is no place other than notes to show quirks so it wouldn't be on the card as the MUL is currently designed.

Cost the unit appropriately. The Special is defined in the usual place; I suggest the exception to be treat VRT as always in play. That, or remove it from being a Special and the conversion rules entirely. Given how much easier it is to edit the MUL than it is to issue errata for a book that most people might realize had changed, my preference is for the former.

Thank you for that. Am curious about the extinct from 3020 to 3033 part, if that was based on some errata, or a bit of a salve to make conflicting info work a little more harmoniously?

Opposite direction, it's ancient. TR3025 Catapult entry says "One of House Kurita’s few Catapults was lost to Davion forces during the battle for the planet Hoff; the Draconis Combine has at least one other Catapult assigned to Brion’s Legion, but no others have been deployed with any regular Kurita unit.” And that's for all Catapult's for Kurita. Since Kurita has no Catapults from 3020 (Hoff was 3019) until some undefined later date that's at least post 3025, and only Kurita has K2s, there's no K2s after Hoff until Kurita starts new production of K2s in 3033.

Opposite direction, it's ancient. TR3025 Catapult entry says "One of House Kurita’s few Catapults was lost to Davion forces during the battle for the planet Hoff; the Draconis Combine has at least one other Catapult assigned to Brion’s Legion, but no others have been deployed with any regular Kurita unit.” And that's for all Catapult's for Kurita. Since Kurita has no Catapults from 3020 (Hoff was 3019) until some undefined later date that's at least post 3025, and only Kurita has K2s, there's no K2s after Hoff until Kurita starts new production of K2s in 3033.

Ah, that works well. Good to know and makes sense. Plus as the entire TRO 2750 knows... extinct is seldom as extinct as one thinks. So I reckon it's not too far of a stretch for there to be another stray or three like the one in Brion's Legion, but none in any Kurita House Unit, etc......and yeah, rare enough to be for all intents and purposes, extinct. And let's be honest, even before Hoff... it was essentially extinct with that info. Very interesting stuff.

Opposite direction, it's ancient. TR3025 Catapult entry says "One of House Kurita’s few Catapults was lost to Davion forces during the battle for the planet Hoff; the Draconis Combine has at least one other Catapult assigned to Brion’s Legion, but no others have been deployed with any regular Kurita unit.” And that's for all Catapult's for Kurita. Since Kurita has no Catapults from 3020 (Hoff was 3019) until some undefined later date that's at least post 3025, and only Kurita has K2s, there's no K2s after Hoff until Kurita starts new production of K2s in 3033.

Are there any other BattleMechs that have a similar "period of extinction" in the MUL? I was under the impression the MUL only dealt with introduction dates specifically and steered clear of "extinction" dates. Is this a change in policy?

Are there any other BattleMechs that have a similar "period of extinction" in the MUL? I was under the impression the MUL only dealt with introduction dates specifically and steered clear of "extinction" dates. Is this a change in policy?

It's an interesting tidbit that I thought to include. We put them in public notes every now and then. There is no policy on the public notes.

Had someone point out the Blackjack Prototype, the BJ-1X, is listed as being produced in 2769.... 12 years after the later production model, the BJ-1 entered production (2757). Not sure if this implies that the original Prototype BJ-1X was later released as a full production model, or just a fact check/typo issue?

Also noted that the BJ-3X http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3831/blackjack-bj-3x does not show on the base BJ entry? http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=blackjack

Very minor thing but... The Celerity CLR-02-X-D has wrong intro date (3052). Kinda, maybe.The issue is the XL Gyro the Celerity uses. The XL Gyro is prototyped in about 3055 according to Interstellar Operations pg 48.On the other hand, XTRO ComStar describes the Celerity project starting in 3052. Now, perhaps the project was indeed started then but assuming IO is correct, then the first functional Celerities can't have been produced before 3055 (indeed, perhaps XL gyro is basically a side-effect of the project). Seems to me that adjusting the 'Mech's intro date makes more sense than issuing errata for IO and XTRO ComStar so i figured i'd drop this here rather than somewhere else.

This Annihilator lists its TRO as 3050U, but I can't find any mention of the C variant in the writeup in 3050U, and so its source should probably be set as Operation Klondike, where it is mentioned in the writeup Also, the Record Sheet Source says "RS3050Uu-C" but the C and C2 are in RS3050Uu-I. They're also in RSOK, but I'm not sure which one is newer at this point, but I would recommend RS3050Uu-I since its more mainstream.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/45/annihilator-c-2

The TRO for this is listed as "RS3050Uu-C" but obviously that's not a TRO, and should probably be set as Operation KLONDIKE, since that's where its mentioned. The Record Sheet source is technically correct, but it might be better to use RS3050Uu-I, since that's the more mainstream product.

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1011/eyleuka-eyl-4a

Ths date is 3068, which is the Jihad Era, but the Era Symbol is the Civil War symbol. Since the design has Machine Gun Arrays, which debuted in 3068, the symbol should be changed to the Jihad Symbol. I suppose you could try to argue prototypes or something, but either way, the date and the Era Symbol should match.

Galahad GLH-1DCurrent availability has this at several factions, along with the SLDF, HAF, and AEAF. As per an old post from Herb, it was a one-off production line and wasn't continuously produced. Suggesting a rating of "Extinct".

If it's not listed in this thread, I haven't added or changed any units in years. So it would be impossible for me to list anything else, I haven't done anything else to list. I can't prove anybody else hasn't, I do t have such a list.

Primitive V was the last set of units I've entered. Corrections have been done. Judging by the volume of the change log, adding a step of logging it manually here wouldn't be realistic. I know at one point in time I was averaging 10 changes a day if the log was any indication of work and I was only one person.

Sorry.

I'm in the habit of getting a fresh AS image each time just to make sure I'm up to date.

Based on personal observations, the main coverage holes right now are:

*3039 and 3050 (IS/SL) units don't extend past the Early Republic *Zero Clan tables exist for anything pre-Clan Invasion. *There is no public data for the Age of War*The status of TRO:3057 units remains in limbo

There is still some work to be done on non-TRO sources, but I suspect a good portion of that is marking dozens of units as extinct an era or two past when they debuted.

Very good observations. I burned out before getting the 39/50 IS units. Warships aren't my strength. PreInvasion clan may appear when Golden Century comes out.

I doubt we will see Age of War unless we get better source materials. There were just too many holes to fill to make it worth the time. Star League was difficult enough and there are more books in that era to work with.

I doubt we will see Age of War unless we get better source materials. There were just too many holes to fill to make it worth the time. Star League was difficult enough and there are more books in that era to work with.

That's the impression I got from poking at the Age of War stuff for some personal use projects. About two-thirds of the mechs are pretty cut and dry. There are very few indications that many of the primitives or a number of the house designs (e.g. Hammerhands, Koschei, Crossbow) found their way out of the initial designers' hands with a few exceptions. The first wave of introtech designs largely pops up between the late 2400s and early 2500s that are already widely dispersed. You get hints of mass-proliferation of Hegemony designs from both the Talos' and Hector's writeups, but to where and how quickly is, at best, inference and guesswork.

The MUL isn't showing quirks for any units, we're not going to just do one.

I don't mean offense in questioning your decision, but VRT isn't solely a quirk. It's a special Ability, defined on page 109 of the Alpha Strike Core Rule Book, it's usage is further explained on page 103 of the core rule book, where it is explicitly called out as a special ability, and it's conversion rules are listed in the Alpha Strike Companion on page 133 in the 'Battletech Conversions" rules, right after UMU and right before VTX#. Additionally, while VRT may be listed in the quirks section, it is listed there right after Trailer Hitch and searchlight (Page 64 ASC). Trailer hitch and searchlight are both a design quirk AND special ability (HTC or SRCH) and have been added to cards (link to units with HTC special ability (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=HTC&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=))(link to units with SRCH special ability (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=true&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasRole=&HasBFAbility=SRCH&MinPV=&MaxPV=&Role=None+Selected&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=)), so to say that VRT can't be done because it's a "quirk" is insufficient in my opinion, with how well documented it is, and with the core book explicitly calling it a special ability, and providing rules for it as part of the core rules (which do not even include quirks).In short, I ask you to reconsider, and having VRT added to the aforementioned unit's card, as well as any other unit that can be pointed at as meeting the criteria as per the conversion rules (I don't know of any other unit that has this, personally, but if I find one, I'll let you know).

Cost the unit appropriately. The Special is defined in the usual place; I suggest the exception to be treat VRT as always in play. That, or remove it from being a Special and the conversion rules entirely. Given how much easier it is to edit the MUL than it is to issue errata for a book that most people might realize had changed, my preference is for the former.

Rim Worlds RepublicMissing the Aegis Cruiser from both lists. We know that at least one existed from Historical Turning Points: New Dallas. How do I remember this? The ship was named the RWS Tigershark. ;D

Colt Medium Fighter (From Experimental Technical Readout: Primitives V)http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7415/colt-medium-fighter (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7415/colt-medium-fighter)ISSUE: MUL entry for the Colt Medium Fighter (SRM) Variant is missing. The SRM variant is noted in the original entry in XTRO: P5, with no record sheet published.

SOLUTION: Add missing page for fluff variant, only difference from the original Colt Medium Fighter is straight swap of LRM5s for SRM4 on either wing and LRM ammo is also straight switch for 1 ton of SRM ammo.

Currently, the PV for the standard is showing as 22PV:http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/314/bear-cub-standard

while the 3 is showing at 20PV:http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/316/bear-cub-3

This makes no sense on its face because the 3 does MORE damage than the standard, and is identical in all other respects, but it costs LESS PV.

SOLUTION:

According to the Alpha Strike PV spreadsheet that Xotl provided for evaluating the upcoming PV revision, the current PV's for those units are 19PV for the Bear Cub Standard, and 20PV for the Bear Cub 3. I double-checked and those numbers seem correct.

As best as I can tell, under the current (non-revised) PVs, both should have the same value (20). However, the spreadsheet that uses the old formulas and which we derived all the current MUL PVs from has a rounding error compared to how the Companion lays things out, so that may explain why you're getting a 1-point difference.

I'll change the Standard to 20 PV, placing them closer together. If/when the revision goes through, the rounding error will be fixed; I don't want to adjust it now, because that would be a bunch of work only to be thrown out when the revised values are implemented.

A question came up and was posted here (lost with last hiccup), the question is about the LCT-1M according to the MUL is is listed as extinct (as of 2901) but several of us can find no sources other than the MUL that says it is/or should be extinct, on the other hand we can find sources that imply it is still active as late as 3039 at least.

According to TRO 3025 "The Model 1M Locust reduces its armor and carries two LRM 5-packs, 24 rounds of ammunition, and the popular Martell medium laser . This version is used mainly by House Davion's Ceti Hussars." It also goes on to say "Model 1E is the Locust variant least produced and least resembling the others . Reducing its armor in favor of more weaponry, the 1E carries two arm-mounted medium lasers as well as two small lasers." and then in TRO 3039 "The 1M variant, popular in Davion space, further reduces the Locust’s armor in order to mount two LRM-5 launchers." So if it is produced more than the 1E but the 1E is not extinct, and in 3039 it is popular in Davion space, also both TRO's talk about it in the present tense not past. So I guess the question is there a super special secret source that only the MUL folks have that says it is extinct as several of us have looked and can not find anything, or are we just missing the snake in front of our faces?

NCKestrel: LCT-1M's have been found not yet dead in the AFFS in later eras. They were just hiding to protect their thin armor. MUL updated. Thanks.

Question: Phoenix Hawk LAM PHX - in the MUL, all the records show it as size 1. At 50 tons, should be size 2.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4822/phoenix-hawk-lam-phx-hk2http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4822/phoenix-hawk-lam-phx-hk2mhttp://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4821/phoenix-hawk-lam-phx-hk1rb(no AS card for the C version).

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but Clan Wolf appears to have somehow lost the Loki and all its alt. configs for the Dark Ages. If I recall correctly, it was available to them quite a few months back, as I made a purchase off the info.

I'm not sure if this is an issue or not, but Clan Wolf appears to have somehow lost the Loki and all its alt. configs for the Dark Ages. If I recall correctly, it was available to them quite a few months back, as I made a purchase off the info.

Any ideas?

I just dug out the original file used to import the Late Republic and Dark Age eras. The data that is there now appears to be the same as what was entered early last year. The Loki II has been available to them.

I just dug out the original file used to import the Late Republic and Dark Age eras. The data that is there now appears to be the same as what was entered early last year. The Loki II has been available to them.

Objectives: The Clans (ca. 3079) has the Falcons as the only producers of the original Loki in the Inner Sphere. With all of the fighting, I could see the Wolves' stock running out by 3100 when they lose access on the MUL.

Objectives: The Clans (ca. 3079) has the Falcons as the only producers of the original Loki in the Inner Sphere. With all of the fighting, I could see the Wolves' stock running out by 3100 when they lose access on the MUL.

I just dug out the original file used to import the Late Republic and Dark Age eras. The data that is there now appears to be the same as what was entered early last year. The Loki II has been available to them.

Alright, sounds like I may just have a poor memory then, haha.

It is pretty safe to assume the Wolf Empire could potentially maintain some that they already possessed (via salvage) or claim some as isorla from the Falcons, no?

That's outside the purview of the MUL, but in general any major faction in BattleTech can field at least a few examples of most 'Mechs. The faction availability notes in the MUL (and other sources) should be treated as guidelines, not straitjackets.

Hi, I have a function request. Is there any way to add a function so that we can just click on an era and see everything available to every faction (essentially, am average lost of all units available in a specific era)? If this already exists I'm missing how to do it.

The Cobra Transport VTOL (Original) has no rules level, but the record sheet classifies it as introtech http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3971/cobra-transport-vtol-original

The Darter Scout Car (SRM 2) lacks a BV (167) and a Rules Level (record sheet tags it as introtech)http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4050/darter-scout-car-srm2

NCKestrel: corrected, thanks. random trivia... The MUL started with 3075 units, back when it was first a spreadsheet and handed to me when I joined the MUL team. And at the time, Introductory was limited to 'Mechs only (as only 'Mechs were in the Intro Box Set). Eventually Intro tech was broadened to include vehicles, but it looks like these 3075 vehicles never got caught up....

After setting up a complete set of factories for our online campaign, I did notice that there was a notable lack of advanced tech in the RWA, despite the language of FR:2765:

Quote

Intelligence Command reports also show that, since the Twentieth Army left Republic space [2755], each of these divisions has been slowly cycling older BattleMechs out of its ranks, replacing them with models normally seen only from Hegemony sources.

This seems to indicate that, for 12 years, the Imperial Divisions were modernizing with SLDF equipment. Feels like some of the TRO:2750 designs would be listed in the "Rim Worlds Republic: Home Guard", such as those listed in 2765 on page 18 (Black Knight, Excalibur, Highlander, King Crab) and on page 19 (Atlas).

Surely, these advanced designs went with the Liberation Army to Terra, but for those 12 years, they were in the Republic proper. I'm sure it's come up before, but just asking if you guys can take a look. The list feels a bit "anemic" for a force capable of defeating the SLDF on its home ground. :)

The Titan TI-1Aj and Titan TI-1Ar have intro dates of 3023, but Late Republic Era badges. The -1Aj contains a number of advanced technologies that do not exist at the time. The -1Ar. while using strictly Star League tech, is quite out of place in the 3020s as well.

Solution: Was the intro date for these supposed to be 3123?

---------------

The Victor VTR-9B (Li) from OTP: Death to Mercenaries is listed as Standard tech. I can't see any advanced tech on the sheet.http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3402/victor-vtr-9b-li

edit: Same with the Annihilator ANH-1Ehttp://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/36/annihilator-anh-1e

NCKestrel: Yep, both Titan's are supposed to be 3123. That and the two intro tech units corrected. Thanks

Panther PNT-9ALAG (from CM: Kurita, Pg. 54) does not come in up in searches. There is an entry in the clan invasion section for House Kurita for a PNT-10LAG (which seems to be the unit described in FM: Kurita, pg. 94), but this does not appear in searches either.

Also, no card is provided for the extant PNT-10LAG (I'm assuming that this and the PNT-9ALAG are the same machine?)

Also, I wonder about the 3054 entry date on the PNT-10LAG's MUL entry. The description on Pg. 54 (last paragraph of main body text) of CM: Kurita suggests that the modifications for the PNT-9ALAG are such that it would be possible to field the design during the Late Succession Wars (Renaissance).

NCKestrel: Adding PNT-9ALAG. PNT-10ALAG is a different unit, but there has never been a record sheet or any other details for it. It's not showing in searches because it has no BV (due to no details to calculate BV from).

I was wondering: Would it be possible to add an option to download Alpha Strike cards as "one card per page", with the the circles able to be filled in while being read in the pdf? I would like to not have to print out all these cards every time I want to play, and adding a few simple things to a pdf will make it easy to use on a small screen like a phone or tablet.

Here is an example of what I mean: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8kqPO6A6VFgR0FtclY0Mm5qdGs (https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8kqPO6A6VFgR0FtclY0Mm5qdGs)

The dots and heat scale can be manipulated in adobe reader for Linux, Windows, iOS, or Android but not the pdf viewer in the Google drive app.

It would also not be hard to program a pdf to recalculate the inches of movement based on the number of MP hits, the damage based on Weapons hits, or to alter the cost based on the base to hit target (skill level). It might be better to put that on a legal size page instead of letter, since most screens are 16:9 instead of 4:3

NCKestrel: Thanks for the suggestion, but we do not have the resources at this time to make any new development on the MUL.

It also appears that several factions need to be updated for availability of Land-Air 'Mechs in the SL era.

Draconis CombineField Report: 2765 (DCMS), page 15

Quote

The First Rasalhague Regulars are the showpiece of the Rasalhague District. Based on the SLDF striker regiments, the First has light- to medium-weight BattleMechs, a dedicated aerospace fighter wing, and a company of Land-Air ’Mechs. It also contains a significant number of Star League-designed BattleMechs, produced both within the Combine or purchased from SLDF surplus. The First Rasalhague’s LAMs are thus one of the most advanced tools in the Combine’s arsenal, produced by LexaTech Industries on Irece.

Outworlds AllianceField Report: 2765 (Periphery), page 9

Quote

Positions in the WarShip training programs are the most highly sought after in the RSSCO, but the largest classes focus on aerospace fighter and small craft programs, which also includes training for the Alliance’s few Land-Air ’Mech pilots.

Rim Worlds RepublicField Report: 2765 (Periphery), page 21

Quote

In addition to these assets, each division’s lighter weight ’Mech assets includes of a full battalion of Land-Air ’Mechs, spread out unevenly between each of the division’s nine regiments. These LAMs are used as highly effective scouts, to help direct larger Lancers formations towards their targets. Due to this tactical maneuverability, the Amaris Lancer brigades are often the first to be deployed against bandit forces on offensive missions....The most common under-strength elements in the Lancers are their LAM formations. Intelligence Command shows evidence that the Republic is developing its own Land-Air ’Mech production lines somewhere within its territory, as the realm cannot presently secure enough of these flexible machines to keep up with the Lancers’ demand through Hegemony-source imports alone.

There are more in the other reports, but I don't have them in front of me ATM. :)

Research into the Record Sheet confirmed the omission of the 2nd ERML on the Minotaur [Standard] that exists in TRO3060.

My calculation is unofficial, but it is based on the current methods. Someone else with the proper authority is welcome to check against it and make the appropriate correction**EDIT** I revisited my calculations...

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6631/zeus-x-zeu-x (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6631/zeus-x-zeu-x)The Zeus-X ZEU-X is given an introduction date of 3054, though it has reactive armor which has a prototype date of 3063(DC), production ~3083(DC) (IO, p. 35; this date is unchanged from TO, 282).

NCKestrel: short answer, it's a mess but correct. longer answer: The ZEU-X is a very complicated case, since it was introduced to the universe in MaxTech Which had an in-universe date of 3059, so it couldn't have been 3063 or later. And it was the cover of MaxTech (ie. not exactly easy to ignore). And until RS 3085? (and/or MWDA) or so, it had no other existence in canon. So making it not exist in 3055 would mean removing it from it's only existence in canon to that point. Officially, the ZEU-X existed in 3054. There are many Solaris designs that have equipment prior to the TO/IO prototype date. The general directive has been that Solaris prototypes doesn't always count toward IO/TO prototype dates, as those dates are when the major militaries, ie, not Solaris only, use them. Above my pay grade to do anything about. But there was a ZEU-X in 3054.

I've got the mention in the sourcebook, but, oddly, not the record sheet. Thanks for the exact page number: mine show's the HOP-4Bb. Fortunately, I bought that thru DriveThru, so I can check to see if there's an update available.

I appreciate the double-check, GoldBishop.

Edit: DriveThru shows it was last updated March 2010, so either CGL didn't decide to update DriveThru or they removed it the -2N. GoldBishop: would you please check p. 3 of the RS, under "Credits"? See if there is a version number I can report to DriveThru?

I've got the mention in the sourcebook, but, oddly, not the record sheet. Thanks for the exact page number: mine show's the HOP-4Bb. Fortunately, I bought that thru DriveThru, so I can check to see if there's an update available.

...GoldBishop: would you please check p. 3 of the RS, under "Credits"? See if there is a version number I can report to DriveThru?

My copy of RS:OK appears to be the unmodified version (no update/revision number).Under credits, I also have 2010, but no month.Looking directly at the file, my copy was installed/downloaded in August 2016, but last modified in March [2016].

91 total pages, with the Griffin -2N in between the Sentinel STN-3Lb on page 36 and the Hoplite HOP-4Bb p.38

My RS OK is showing the GRF-4N, not 2N. However I have in my MUL email "The KLONDIKE GRF RS should be labelled GRF-2N, not -4N, it was a typo in that RS volume." Historical Operation Klondike calls it the 2N.

My RS OK is showing the GRF-4N, not 2N. However I have in my MUL email "The KLONDIKE GRF RS should be labelled GRF-2N, not -4N, it was a typo in that RS volume." Historical Operation Klondike calls it the 2N.

Thank you, gentlemen. It looks like it was modified (GoldBishop) but possibly not submitted to DriveThru. I'll have to figure out how to make the note that nckestrel provided (so I don't lose it). I submitted the error to DriveThru, and their publisher relations team will be attempting to reach CGL.

XTRO RetroTech tells us that the Star Dagger was an obsolete fighter from the Terran Hegemony brought back into production in the Jihad. Clearly the intro date of 3077 in the MUL needs to be updated, though to exactly when I'm not totally sure.

The MUL lists both the FS9-K and FS9-A as extinct from the early SW yet TRO3039 states that -H was the main production model not the only production model and it further clarifies it by stating the -M version was done just before the factory was destroyed.

Given the -A and -K were produced and are simple weapon swaps I think the MUL should reflect that it would be available.

The -K model looks like the inspiration for the omni model that came out later on.

The MUL lists both the FS9-K and FS9-A as extinct from the early SW yet TRO3039 states that -H was the main production model not the only production model and it further clarifies it by stating the -M version was done just before the factory was destroyed.

Given the -A and -K were produced and are simple weapon swaps I think the MUL should reflect that it would be available.

The -K model looks like the inspiration for the omni model that came out later on.

I just read TRO Succession Wars and it stated the only model that ceased production was the -A variant. So the -K model should still have limited availability as the -H model was the dominant production model not sole.

I'd like to request that the Goblin Infantry Support Vehicle (Standard) (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1222/goblin-infantry-support-vehicle-standard) be made available to the Free Worlds League beginning in the Clan Invasion period. This is based entirely on the following lines from Field Manual: Free Worlds League:

The tank that you linked to does not make sense to be sold from the FC to the FLW at that time when the arms were flowing in the other direction. The case could be made for the older Goblin Medium Tank to still have FWL availability. Those still carried infantry too.

Two points: first, the old Goblin's nomenclature is as a medium tank, meaning it would appear in armor formations rather than as an infantry fighting vehicle (being the nomenclature for the upgraded version that appeared in 3053). Second, the first quote from the 20th Marik Militia specifies modern IFVs. The original Goblin is of First Star League vintage which certainly doesn't make it modern.

Edit: Also note that the flow of arms wasn't one-way out of the Free Worlds. FedSuns-produced vehicles like the Yellow Jacket, as an example, are available to the FWL; the League also shipped arms to the Combine, yet the FWLM includes Combine-produced tanks like the Pegasus and Maxim as well as the the full range of first-generation OmniMechs (the Firestarter and Blackjack actually being licensed to FWL manufacturers).

Names in the MUL are actually split by name and model. Warhammer is name, WHM-6R is model. The search field autopopulates on name only, not model.The Marsden MBT I has a name of Marsden MBT, and a Model of I. The Marsden MBT (Standard) has a name of Marsden MBT, and a model of (Standard). The Other Models list on a unit also goes by name. Thus all the Marsden MBT's show as Other Models to one another, because they all have the same name (Marsden MBT), just different models.The reason Marsden MBT II is showing up, is because there is a a date entry...inconsistency. The primitive Marsden II is listed as Marsden II MBT II (Primitive), while the other Marsden IIs are listed as Marsden MBT II. So that needs to be cleaned up. And the same with the III.

Lee (2756) (http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/6785/lee-2756)Issues: Missing Variants, availability is incorrect, and Role missing Comment: The variant is from Liberation of Terra V2 (Revised), p. 148-149 - Fluff explains there are 3 variants, CV (aerospace carrier version), Combat Vehicle Transport, and Cargo Transport. None have entries on the MUL. I know it's lacking of record sheets, but they should have entries. The Ship is suppose to be extinct beyond the Succession War era. No notes have ever said the ship is back in production beyond that era. There no role in the article, which is a Mech Carrier (main variant)

I just read TRO Succession Wars and it stated the only model that ceased production was the -A variant. So the -K model should still have limited availability as the -H model was the dominant production model not sole.

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/7145/voidseeker-mk-39-007-strikerThe Voidseeker striker is listed as 14 points. I calculate that it should be 31 pointsIf I take the VoidSeeker Striker ship from the MUL; 3+4+4 for weapons=11, 8*1.5 for armor=12, 4 for structure =4; speed 6*0.25=1.5; ECM=2; Threshold 1*0.25=0.25 11+12+4+1.5+2=31ASC pp. 142

[NCKestrel] Voidseeker Striker updated. Threshold should be 3 instead of 1, and the medium damage value counts twice, so the PV was higher.

[NCKestrel] Voidseeker Interceptor updated. Threshold should be 3 instead of 1, and the medium damage value counts twice, so the PV was higher.Thanks for pointing these out, definitely missed updating those PVs!

The FS & IS General in the Jihad timeframe does not have the IS Standard BA, GDL Scout, Clan Medium 'Rabid' available to them according to the MUL while FM3085 lists the BA in the RAT respectively at the #3, #5 and #18 positions per p218 of the PDF.

The FS & IS General in the Jihad timeframe does not have the IS Standard BA, GDL Scout, Clan Medium 'Rabid' available to them according to the MUL while FM3085 lists the BA in the RAT respectively at the #3, #5 and #18 positions per p218 of the PDF.

We would have to look at them but I suspect the field manual is incorrect. With that said, 3085 is the tail end of the Jihad era.

IS Std BA is 3/5 on DC, 3/5/7 on CC, 7 on FWL, 4 on LC, 5/12 on merc and 7 on RepublicGDL Scout is 5 on LC, 7 on Merc, not on DC, CC, FWL or RepublicRabid is 17 on DC, 21 on Republic and not on others

Since there is not a IS General RAT its hard IMO to say what that component would be for the MUL. I am not saying they are widely available, but the MUL has the Fire Moth available to the FS or IS General for that period as well.

Revisiting an old question, so by this part " the Draconis Combine has at least one other Catapult assigned to Brion’s Legion, but no others have been deployed with any regular Kurita unit." is the assumption then that the Catapult in Brion's Legion is not a K2 series? Also one other Catapult is listed in use by House Kurita, in the Shaw District, Barlow's End on 29 September 3026, piloted by Chu-i Isabella Armstrong of the Ryuken, (first line of pg 171 of chp 19 of Wolves on the Border)

So I guess I am question the totality of the extinction between 3020 and 3033 of the CPLT-K2.. or if it's just for all intents and purposes that the Catapult as a whole i extinct in House Kurita (or in such low numbers ass to be functionally extinct). Mostly due to the various comments about how CGL and HBS are trying to work in lockstep with Canon, but HBS did recently announce the addition of the K2 to the game, (though admittedly in the forgotten reaches of the periphery, and so as such maybe has no bearing on it's "official" status in the Inner Sphere?)

Opposite direction, it's ancient. TR3025 Catapult entry says "One of House Kurita’s few Catapults was lost to Davion forces during the battle for the planet Hoff; the Draconis Combine has at least one other Catapult assigned to Brion’s Legion, but no others have been deployed with any regular Kurita unit.” And that's for all Catapult's for Kurita. Since Kurita has no Catapults from 3020 (Hoff was 3019) until some undefined later date that's at least post 3025, and only Kurita has K2s, there's no K2s after Hoff until Kurita starts new production of K2s in 3033.

I think the Lyran and maybe IS General armor column for the Jihad needs work- for instance FM3085 RAT has the Heimdall, Fensalir (HAG), Gurti, Fensalir, Demo II (Tbolt), DI Morgan, DI Morgan (LRM), Demo II, Demo II (MML), Alacorn Mk VII, Sturmfuer (HG), Behemoth, Fortune, Alacorn Mk VI and others are missing from the MUL. I was just skimming the assault column in that and then comparing. I would assume tanks were also left out in the other weight groups.

I started checking on those, and several are already listed for Lyran Alliance. The Demolisher IIs, DI Morgans, Alacorn Mk VII..Perhaps you missed the Lyran Alliance being listed as a separate faction versus Lyran Commonwealth?There's also a couple that looks like got missed when the Jihad era got extended later (intro year 3081-3085).

Other way around, Scotty. In this case TR3025 is being used as the authoritative source by NCKestrel. Bishop Steiner is under the impression that if the mentioned Catapults are K2s, then the design shouldn't be listed as extinct. This is incorrect. If a faction does not have a unit listed on the MUL for a given time period, it does not mean that literally none of them exist, only that they are vanishingly rare. The Shadow Hawk LAM, for example, was basically Extinct from its creation, but one was in a Steiner museum.

Other way around, Scotty. In this case TR3025 is being used as the authoritative source by NCKestrel. Bishop Steiner is under the impression that if the mentioned Catapults are K2s, then the design shouldn't be listed as extinct. This is incorrect. If a faction does not have a unit listed on the MUL for a given time period, it does not mean that literally none of them exist, only that they are vanishingly rare. The Shadow Hawk LAM, for example, was basically Extinct from its creation, but one was in a Steiner museum.

I am under no such impression. I am looking for what the "official" take is on said matters specifically for dealing with the fact that there seems to be no consensus as to what extinct means. If there is, and I have missed it, that citation itself would work wonders.

That said, since the citation in TRO 3025 (part A) was used in part to determine it's "extinction" then the same citation (pt b) should be just as "authoritative.

But I also admit, as someone who has used K2s in his 3025 era canon unit, for decades, only to get told at a con... "bruh those aren't legal" one year.... (because apparently someone had decided that suddenly they didn't exist AT ALL until 3033... wtf?), and being the guy who instigated the last MUL related update to them...

Other way around, Scotty. In this case TR3025 is being used as the authoritative source by NCKestrel.

TR3025 Revised says the same.TR3039 doesn't say anything specific about Catapults in Kurita until 3033, but states the Catapult was "completely ignored and it's numbers were dwindling" overall until Kurita started production in 3033. It also implies all of Kurita's Catapults came from taking Dieron. IE. Kurita had one source from one time in the 1st SW. It definitely does not sound like it's attempting to retcon 3025's statements on Kurita's extremely limited numbers of Catapults in 3025.

(On the other hand, Battlepack: 4SW has three Kuritan forces each with a CPLT-C1 in 3028-3029.)

No CPLT-K2s post 3025 is perhaps a little strong. Maybe one or two Kuritan's acquired Catapults and converted them to K2s on their own. It's always possible. "Practically extinct" as you described should always be assumed.

But I also admit, as someone who has used K2s in his 3025 era canon unit, for decades, only to get told at a con... "bruh those aren't legal" one year.... (because apparently someone had decided that suddenly they didn't exist AT ALL until 3033... wtf?)

I understand that. I am deeply annoyed that someone would declare that you can't use a CPLT-K2 in a game simply because it doesn't appear as available to Kuritans in that time period. That is a misuse of the Master Unit List. It was never meant to be the be-all, end-all of what a player can and cannot use in games. Even if the K2 is rare enough to not warrant MUL availability in those 13 years, it is certainly a thematically-appropriate unit for 3025ish Kuritan forces. Telling you that you couldn't use it was petty, and I am very sorry that it happened.

While I am no longer a BattleTech or MUL contributor, I can say that the use of the Master Unit List to dictate unit availability by faction is strictly optional. There are few - if any - formal, printed rules for using the MUL, and players, GMs, and event organizers should be certain that everyone involved in a game or tournament is in agreement as to any restrictions they feel it imposes. I strongly urge that people running tournaments retain the utmost flexibility in interpreting the Master Unit List. The Alpha Strike Combat Manuals give rules specifically tailored to allow factions to use rare or captured units; I would highly recommend using a variant of those.

And as for HBS using the K2, we know why they’ve added it. Sometimes there are forces beyond canon, and you do the best you can with what you have. Harassing them over canon when they’re just trying to give you a fun option when legally they can’t put in the preferred option doesn’t help.